ON RANUNCULUS FLAMMULA. 871 
en s in 
place on Wimbledon Common (1887); I think, archeg 
that it is tolerably clear that these rooting plants are none of them 
varieties, but merely most ephemeral states resulting from local 
influences 
Such floating forms as occur in Surrey seem also to be only 
states. It is by no means unusual in this county to find, in the 
early spring ‘andnthe , floating states in which the root- leaves are 
road, an to ten times 
shorter than the petiole. As in the case of ae large Batrachium- 
ike floating leaves of R. sceleratus, also to be seen by our Surre 
ditch-sides in the — spring, they rarely persist until the flower- 
ing season, owing, I suppose, to the ditches and pools a 
hein. dry og Sat time. Typical Flammula seems to fruit w: 
Respecting R. reptans L., Fries wrote (‘ Novitie,’ p. 178) that 
““R. reptans L. verissimus 1” when transplanted to the garden, 
severed the first year to R. press But in a later tinct 
seen similar abortive fruits in | Plann la. No allusion is made 
to his previous observation, and I suppose it may y con 
cluded that he imagined that he had not experimented on the trne 
Even at the present day the question whether Rh. reptans L. 
a 
be a distinct species or not would seem to be undecided, judging by 
the different treatment it receives from ent authors. It is 
treated as a distinct species by Professor Babin (‘ Man. Brit. 
Bot.’); by Dr. Blytt (‘Norges Flora’); b nge (‘ Danske 
Flora,’ ‘Consp. Flo. Groenl.’) and by Dr. Nyman _(‘ Consp. Flo 
urop.’); as a subspecies by Dr. Boswell Syme (‘ Eng. Bot.’ iii.), 
and by Sir J. Hooker (‘ Stud. Flo.’); an , as a variety by 
r. Hartman (‘ Flo d.’); by Professor Macoun (‘ Cat. Canad, 
Pl.’); and H Nilsson accordi labels (worded 
most strongly-marked ‘ reptans” that one could wish to see. 
order to show the present discordant opinions about this ogee ¥ 
has been necessary to go into some amount of detail. But 
