130 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
A further practical difficulty is that characters which are un- 
mistakable in the living plants may become very o obscure indeed in 
e Fumitories of the herbarium. This applies especially to the 
base or ‘‘neck” of the fruit; to the form of the outer petals; and 
sometimes to the curving of the pedicels. It unfortunately happens, 
too, that in the dried plants the flowers and fruits very readily fall 
away, and this to such an extent that in some of the older type- 
specimens that I have seen, no vestige either of any part of the 
flower or of the fruit remains. 
aving thus briefly pointed out what seem to be the chief 
difficulties in examining these neglected plants, I will endeavour 
to indicate and account for some of the differences between our 
views of the various species and those of our neighbours across the 
annel. 
In the ninth edition of — London Catalogue the Capreolate 
Fumitories stand as follows, 
1. Fumaria beseech Sista: 3. IF. confusa Jord. 
2. a abe te 4, F, muralis Sonder. 
two latter works I’. Borei is reduced to the rank at a variety - 
of F’, pallidiflora (which Hooker calls F. capreolata L.), and in 
the Student’s Flora F. confusa and F. muralis are treated as sub- 
species only. 
Turning to the arrangement given by recent continental authors, 
I find in Nicotra’s monograph, 1897 :— 
Sect. 1. Capreonara 
(1.) F. Stee 1 B Ueiesctctd i up btncag: a Jord.). 
(3.) F. ir dite Sond 
F. mura = Sond. B serotina (= F. confusa Jord.). 
Sect. 2, Agrarr 
(4.) F. Lassi Bois. y Borai (= F. Borei Jord.). 
ao ao & Foucaud’s Flore de France, vol. i. 1898, the names 
Hs ) F. saga L. 
(6.) F. Wiihdia J oft: 
_ (8.) F. agraria Lagasca. 
