242, THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
Proceedings of the Holmesdale Natural History Club for 1899- 
1901, p. 40. 
Dr. A. B. Rendle kindly gave me a few flowers from a specimen 
preserved in the British Museum, and Mr. Salmon subsequently 
communicated a specimen, which enabled me to confirm his 
onchgemeoat 
ugust, 1906, Mr. R. Hedger Wallace, Lecturer on Agri- 
pale for the Glamorgan County Council, sent specimens of a 
Cuscuta to Kew for determination, and it was named C. su tie 
Seringe, but on further examination I find that it is C. Tine 
nsenga (C. } i 
ev 
So far the history of Cuscuta suaveolens in n England ; but it 
appeared on the Continent before it was detected here, causing a 
considerable stir, and receiving a long string of names. Seringe 
described it under this name in the Ann. Sciences Phys. et Nat. 
ep te de Lyon, 1840, iii. 519. This publication is not 
accessible a moment, but the Botanische Zeit i 
the 
ager! aes that at an exhibition of fruit and flowers at Lyons, 
, Seringe exhibited a new dodder, Cuscuta suaveolens, 
Which was introduced from Chili with seed of lucern bearing 
the commercial name of “ RI ty agg = from the other 
species of Cuscuta indigenous n having capitate 
ey and the plant had a rics egies tenes, both when 
fresh a ried 
In rape of this, Pfeiffer described (Bot. Zeit. ae 705) 
) ‘ a 
A. “preg and inte Sonder. ie ae (Mém. Soc. d’Hist. 
Nat. de Genév 180) (communicated to the Society, Jan. — 
184i) aa published the plant as C. corymbosa Ruiz & Pa 
pauciflora Choisy, floribus ‘pasos “ Apud a eorane, 
in y pres loci dicti eue d’ rep. cl. Reuter, missam cum 
seminibus Medicaginis sative e Badin onte extractis et quae alias 
Americanas eee quoque continebant. Jucunde odora 
dolle’s 
same author, in De Can Prodromus, ix. 456 (1845), under 
C. corym ae aes“ Hue ‘Soboari referenda rok C. hasstaca 
Pfeiff.”” This was discussed and dis Engelmann and 
uss isputed by 
Sonder, and the former eventually described it (Trans. Acad. 
Science St. Louis, i. 97, 1859) as C. racemosa Mart. var. chiliana 
En, nar 
is no doubt that C. suaveolens is not a variety of 
C. sewiitabben Ruiz & Pavon, and the question arises whether it is 
correctly placed as a variety of C. racemosa Mart. Progel She 
Bras. vii. 383, 1871) follows fae but he adds sess 
