16 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
Under this name RP. divaricatus was issued in Herb. Fl. Rossice, 
mk 
tilts var. a, and var. Pie Ww ie dae 1 obvio Brite ae gE circinatus. 
Persoon defines his R. flacci ideas, “fol petiolatis omnibus i incisis 
capillaceis, = divaricatis flaccidis (in aquis stagnantibus).” 
This is somewhat vague, and may elude more than divaricatus 
Schrank, as Tear s var. 8 evidently corresponds with the var. y 
of aquatilis L. — only other author who takes up the name is 
C. A. Meyer, Verz. Pflanz. doct. Kolenati in Beitr. Pflanzenk. 
Russ. Reich, lief. vi. i be (1849). The ucminiin corresponds with 
that of R. divaricatus Schrank; and Meyer distinguishes the 
ctrcinatus (or, as he calls it, ‘ B. divaricatus Koch’’) 
by the following characters: “Facile distinguitur foliis et illorum 
segmentis primariis petiolatis, laciniis undique divergentibus qui- 
de ed mollibus flaccidis et extra aquam collabentibus uni- 
lateralibus (non, ut in illo, rigidis divaricatis et circa caulem 
verticillatis).” 
f. capillaceus Thuill. seems to include > wa tricho- 
phyllus, a yen deal of sobuuiiien and part of fluct 
fi. atus Dubois is co-extensive with the Anal but some- 
what more vague. It probably, coincides with BR. a : 
Bertol. FL ikea, v. 577 (Jul. 1844—as stated “ Finita est” o 
the fly-leaf at the end of the isin not 1842 as suas given 
on the title-page and copied by all authors); which is ame 
more restricted in its application than the original f. pantothrie 
Brotero (1804). is a reas of Dubois’s Flora is a scarce 
book; there is not a t Herb. Mus. Brit. or at Herb. 
Kew. In the second i (1833) the brief description 3 is under 
n. 1030. 
ft. pumilus Poiret is the land- or mud-form of R. ae 
or of fluitans ; but of which it is somewhat doubtful. Mr. Hie 
places it as a synonym of en ante the subterrestrial form of 
divaricatus (but without comment). Godron, in Fl. de France, i. 
26, reduces it to RB. fluitans var. cubes ris. It was a plant idee: 
on the se of ponds at ir oa rade of which Bose sent 
specimens to Poiret. The description certainly seems to fit _the 
— of a leafy stem of the latter in Cosson & St. Pierre’s Atl. jl. 
Paris, ed. 2, t. ii. fig. 2 (1882). I do not know of any 
The Latin di i 
authentic a of Poiret! s plant. Latin diagnosis is 
slaber, foliis tis, pinnis petiolatis; foliolis 
us; seminibus transve(rse] striatis, caule sub- 
oo er description (in — he = that all the 
leaves are sett, prevents Som ged 
ve pinnules oi oapilae petioles, com- 
pet of sex oa. mel leaflets ; the earpels are few, spherical 
