302 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
Soc. ii. 145, 1794). Mr. Williams seems to have been influenced 
y some (of course unintentional) misrepresentations made in = 
Marshall’s er. As many botanists have not access to t 
Lenpeon, herbarium, I should like to put before them another side 
of the 
As fies more than once been pointed out, too much ane must 
not be laid upon the specimens in the Linnean herbarium. Where 
the specimen agrees with the description it is the soln in other 
instances no such claim can be made. Again, care must be taken 
quently, put in plants which do not represent the — as 
established in the Species Plantarwm; for instance, C. atrata is 
represented by C. ee C. uliginosa by C. cho ong be and 
C. canescens by C. polygama. In several cases fief or more species 
i on the same s heer: for instance, C. aren with C. divisa 
Huds. Dae: h aaa is represented by 0. senda rd C. elongata 
vee Sm th). 
ee Marshall’s paper (/.c. p. npn we read: “ oe C. cane- 
a Two very different species are thus named in Herb. L 
The aaa hears which is written ‘Norfole. J eer hy Smith 
as ‘ divu ood. and Fl. Brit.’ is certainly that.” This sheet 
| he 
C, loliacea. If the carga cea of that species be read, it wil 
e seen Linneus might ea think the specimen of C. divulsa, 
e name divulsa as Mr. Marshall says, also in Smith’s writing. 
Therefore the contention drawn from the evidence of the her- 
barium ee that C. divulsa represents C. canescens is with- 
out foundat 
The 
e pa st “ conti inues :—‘‘ As tending further bs Lh nig te that 
Linné did not really regard curta as his eangeee be men- 
tioned the reference to Micheli, Gen. 69, t. 23, £, 10, ed. ree 
ultim C. curta is 
the abo doseripeiues fits C. divulsa nH rably.” For some time 
this was a cryptic utterance to me, since I was unable to find 
Micheli’s synonym either in the esc or vee edition of the Sp. Pl. 
or Flora Suecica. Event tually, however, it was found in Hud- 
son’s Flora on and is there rightly quoted 2 “oR author, 
since Hudson’s C. canescens is C. divulsa. Therefore Hudson's 
synonym has nothing to do with the Linnean spetine in question, 
It is true that the synonym quoted in Sp. Pl. from Flora Lappo- 
nica does not suit C. canescens (probably referring to C. polygama), 
