CRITICAL STUDY OF RANUNCULUS AQUATILIS L. VAR. y 15 
eect indicates the plant which was subsequently described by 
nder the name of Ranunculus divaricatus, there would 
‘eon been no obscurity about Ch aix’s meaning. As it ~_ Chaix’s 
name passed out of notice until it was revived by Grenier and 
Godron in the first volume of their Fl. de France (1848), where 
also unfortunately they misapplied Schrank’s name of R. divari- 
to R. circinatus Sibth., two species founded on tirely 
her 
Plukenor s Tigi shows. A. aquatilis L. var. y is, without 
any doubt, R. divaricatus Schrank, as proved by Linnzeus’ s citation 
from Haller’s earlier work. There would, in fact, be more reason 
in keeping up Ff. feniculaceus than there would be in arbitrarily 
defining the exact application of R. trichophyllus Chaix, which is 
no more than a nomen nudum. The former was at least recog- 
nized to the extent of being reduced to a variety as R. aquatilis 
K. 
var. feniculaceus by . Hagen in a memoir “ De Ranunculis 
prussicis,” pri by Ludwig in his Delect: Opusc. Scient. Nat 
p- 4 ). I entirely agree with Freyn, r “ Zur 
vi. 1881, beil. n. 26, p. 1, and with Blytt, in his Haandb. Norges 
Flora, p. 350 (1904), two most competent authorities in critical 
investigation, who, ees R. trichophyllus Chaix as practically 
a nomen . a , decline to recognize it as ranking for priority, 
Gaterau is aes Bede the whole of the Linnean aquatilis 
(0, B, y, 2); BR. aquaticus Lamk. Fl. Frange. iii. 184 excludes 
ar. 6, and aw 8 exactly aiiaslttoes R. aquatilis W. Sp. Plant. 
ii "1339 Ge 
h ormig, a , 
Salisburg. 145 (1792), this is rendered into Latin; ‘Caule natante; 
foliis 8 compositis, orbiculatis ; laciniis s capillaribus, divergentibus. “3 
Then | eee 
than unite en as Linnzus has ese as science gains 
ra 
R. flaccid » Pers, Mr. Hiern, in Journ. Bot. 1871, p. 102, 
has evidently tok made this pecgntinate form sufficiently ineltieive; 
