8 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
HELLEBORINE Hiww v. HPIPACTIS Apays. 
By G. CuarmcGe Druce, M.A., F.L.S. 
In reviewing The Dillenian Herbaria, the Editor (Journ. Bot. 
p- 282, 1907) demurred to my use of the generic name Helleborine 
instead of the generally accepted Hpipactis. I first suggested 
_the name in Ann. Scott. Nat. Hist. 1905, p. 48, because during 
my work I became saturated with pre-Linnean names, and became 
ss that Adanson’s generic name Epipactis must give way 
to that of Helleborine, as established by Hill and “anderstood by 
R 
Hill, who liv at Getam in that county; and in going through 
his BB oe etable berg his ar Ae utes and especially 
diate Nee per ai if any references to iin ee to be found in 
Hudson’s Flora Anglica, Smith’s Flora Britannica, The En nglish 
Flora, or even in Withering’s Natural Arrangement. Until quite 
nd acter tg his Herbal was considered to be pre-Lin 
e 
y, 1904 
oe latter placed in the unsatisfactory list of nomina rejicienda 
f the Vienna Congress, and attach Hill’s name to several genera 
until then wrongly attributed to more recent workers 
Hill naturally belonged to the ein Me ae and in many 
cases resented th era 
his scientific insight i in many ee lye refusing to 0 accept the views 
held by Linneeus, and often succeeded in proving those definitions 
to be erroneous. I may instance Valerianella, which Linneus 
had pete ee with the distinet genus Valeriana ; Li amonium, which 
us had wrongly put in Statice ; Linaria, included by Linnzus 
in in dntirrhaname; and Mellotus, put with Trifolium. 
correctly separated Mariana from Carduus, Centaurium from 
Gentiana, Glamis from Papaver, Polygonatum from Convallaria, 
Radiola from Linum, Nymphoides trom Menyanthes, Onobrychis 
