90 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
S. horminoides; and G. rubellum, which is ignored in my paper, 
, wher 
believe two or three plants only were found in 1879. Its affinities 
are presumably very close to S. horminiodes var. incisa. aa: 
t will be seen that while Mr. Druce considers the British 
isti i S. hor } 
not only of S. horminoides but of S. Marquandii. 
I notice that Mr. Druce does not dispute the fallacious nature 
of the characters whereby S. Marquandii was se 
terpretation of the Linnean type of S. Verbenaca be accepted, 
Vahl’s description seems to me quite satisfactory, even to the 
cerulean (‘beau bleu d 
the varietal name in all cases where the normal leaf-cutting was 
clearly of the crenate-serrate rather than the sinuate-pinnatifid 
t 
androus form. 
n conclusion, if the arrangement in Mr. Druce’s List is 
retained, we have S. Verbenaca representing a plant which he 
himself admits only resembles the Linnean type and description 
; ih Tha 
I cannot help thinking that in the future some more of the 
intermediate forms of this aggregate species will be more clearly 
defined, as has been done, not altogether satisfactorily, in the case 
