162 ON EUPHRASIA OFFICINALIS L. 
by the lengthening of the corolla-tube, in the smaller-flowered 
forms by the curving downwards of the upper portion of the style, 
both methods bringing the stigma ultimately in closer contact with 
the anthers.* 
to whether all the forms should be considered as members of @ 
single polymorphic species, or whether few or many should take 
mma ; 
the rank of species. Fries, in his Su eg. Scan.. p. 195, 
remarks—‘ Kuphrasie officinalis innume formas in definitas 
reducere species difficillimum est - sincere, et frustra studui nostras 
tam inter duas Kocheanas, quam quattuor Reichenbachianas dis- 
n 
sic definio.” The two which he gives are E. officinalis L. Spee. 
p. 841, and E. gracilis Fr. Litt. Tidn. And he describes b= 
of these in Europe to upwards of twenty. 
Soyer-Willemet, in his Mem. Soc. Nancy (1828), pp. 104-107, 
and 1883, pp. 23-83, has given us the results of his studies 
this direction, and we will follow shortly the road by whic he 
arrived at the construction of the three species and nine subspecies 
which he describes. In his earlier notice he places the comparative 
size of the flower in the first rank as affording characters for specific 
— 
Miiller thinks that E. montana Jord. is, in the absence of insects, incapable 
A + aera remain (‘The Fertilization of Flowers,’ Her ti 
5 
es 
oO 
= 
fon 
= 
=} 
oh 
—_ 
gq 
with differences in the shape, size, and eutting of the calyx and corolla. M 
how far the parasitic nature of Euphrasia has to do with such differences 4 
yse. f 
t Grenier, in ‘Flore Jurassiqne.’ i i Boreau, 17 
’ c que,’ describes seventeen species. , 
Fl. du Centre,’ describes nine species. Timbal-Lagrave, in ‘ Bull. Soc. Bot. de 
d 
Fr.’ (1871), describes seve species. Dall hi 
senschaftlichen Beo chtungen auf Alpenreisen,’ Wien (1882), deseribes eleven 
er, in Sch ad Fl. Aust A 
ribed, as new, four species ; and Dr. G. Beck has described one in ‘ Verhand. 
der Kaiserl.-keenig. Zool.-bot. Gesell. in Wien’ (1883), p. 225. 
