FLORA PYRENAA 83 
Sond. (perhaps not the plant so called by British botanists), F. 
officinalis L. (Engl. Bot. t. 589) which he calls F. vulgaris J, Bauh., 
et. d ifl am. 
Engl. Bot. t. 590 and (F. Vaillantit) Engl. Bot. Suppl. t. 2877 
s 
ame of the frog, and entered into the title of one of the minor 
poems ascribed to Homer, and he words are absolutely 
into Euranunculus. Of this section he has six species :—1. R. 
rLuitans Lam. (Engl. Bot. Suppl. t. 2870), to which he refers 
R, fluviatilis Willd. and R. pumilus Poir, 2. R. rricopnynius 
feniculaceus Gilib. 4. R. aquarm1s Dodonei (Engl. Bot. t. 101), 
under which he cites R. natans Pourr., R. spissoph yllus a 5. 
iy 
3 
= 
= . 
& ‘ 
& 
& 
=) 
ao 
Be, 
Batrachium aquaticum Wimm., B. truncatum, 
aquatile, and penicillatum Dumort. 6. R. HOLOLEUCUS Garcke, 
loyd, to which he unites R. tripartitus b obtusifolius [obtusiflorus] 
C. and R. Petiveri Coss.; and 6. R. uxpurtrous Salish. (Engl. 
Bot. t. 2008), under which he quotes R. hederaceus L., R. chryso- 
splenifolius Pourr., and R. papillatus Dulac. Of these six species, 
5. R. hololeucus is not known to occur in Britain ; the other five 
Species are treated as covering ten or eleven species enumerated 
im London Catalogue of British Plants, ed. ix. (1895). The 
manuscript names—R. amphibius Pourr., p. 404, R. chrysosplenifolius 
Pourr., p. 405 (R. chrysoplenium on p. 406, where it is stated a 
synonymy, and were obtained from the Madrid herbarium. The 
the flora of R. cénosus Guss. or R. Lenormandi F. Schultz is noted 
Mm the author’s preface, i. p. 4. a 
he sympathetic reader of this work, while admiring and 
*Ppreciating the vast amount of care and learning displayed, cannot 
but feel regret that the author's plan of nomenclature had not been 
Teconsidered before publication. W. P. Hieaw. 
