

ON EPILOBIUM DURLEI. 79 



mainly relies, are much too small to separate these forms ; I also 

 state that so very close is E. Duriai to some of the allied " species" 

 that Haussknecht himself has wrongly altered the name of an 

 example of E. Duriai in Herb. Kew. This last is a very strong 

 fact, and I understand Mr. Marshall to admit it (or pass it by 

 unchallenged) ; I do not mean that it shows that Haussknecht 

 does not know the species admirably well, but it shows how 

 exceedingly critical they are. 



As to the five criterions given by Mr. Marshall to separate E. 



montanum var. aprica from E. Duriai, the first four I should esteem 

 of no specific value if I could see them ; but I am unable to see 

 them on the specimens. For instance, Mr. Marshall says that the 

 " stem is always simple in E. Duriai" and that "Barbey's fine 

 plate hits off the average E. Duriai remarkably well." But 

 Barbey's plate shows two lateral branches to the stem, as does the 

 original type specimen (right-hand) of J. Gag. I attribute, however, 

 no importance to such characters. The fifth criterion given by Mr. 

 Marshall is the most important, as Mr. Marshall truly says, " The 

 stolons are entirely like those of E. alsinefolium, as is exceedingly 

 well illustrated by Barbey." This is a most extraordinary statement 

 to me ; the plant of E. Duriai figured by Barbey is stouter than in 

 J. Gay's type specimens (I thought it might have been an artist's 

 enlargement of the larger, but I believe now that Mr. Marshall is 

 right in thinking it not taken from the type pieces collected by 

 Durieu). As to the stolons in Barbey's figure, they are rather 

 stouter than u the montanum states represented by Mr. N. E. Brown 

 in t. 807." In my opinion, they are not so near the stolons of E. 

 ahinefolium as are the stolons of my E. montanum var. aprica 9 

 which agree exactly with those of E. Duriai, as t. 307 shows. 

 It may safely be affirmed that the difference between the stolons 

 of E. montanum var. aprica and those of E. Duriai is not one- 

 hundredth the difference between the stolons of E. montanum var. 

 aprica and the "rosettes" of E. montanum type. 



Mr. Marshall says that I " made a slip in speaking of the 

 remarkably persistent kataphylloid leaves from the preceding year." 

 I do not quite understand this, because, in correcting me, Mr. 

 Marshall states exactly what I meant ; he says, " The new flowering 

 stems are produced from stolons or rosettes which have outlived 

 the winter." Exactly so; the stolons are an elongate form of the 

 rosette, the kataphylloid leaves homologous to its scales ; in 

 "typical" E. montanum in flower in July, no traces of the rosette 

 remain, unless by rare accident ; in E. montanum var. aprica (after 

 digging some hundred specimens, I would say), they are alwavs, 

 unless by accident, present. J. Gay made a prominent point (in 

 his diagnosis of E. Duriai) of the permanence of these kataphylloid 

 leaves ; Mr. Marshall appears to admit the fact of the agreement 

 of E. montanum var. aprica with E. Duriai m this main diagnostic 

 point ; I do not see that he weakens the significance of the fact by 

 raising a question whether the kataphylloid leaves are of the same 

 year or of the preceding year. 



Mr. Marshall then complains of my "tone in speaking of 



