4 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
It may be added that in the Banksian Herbarium we have early 
Madeiran specimens from an anonymous collector in 1763, from 
Downe aba and Robins (1774)—collectors of whom I know 
nothing turer 
n the course of going through the National Herbarium with 
the view of ‘identifying the plants collected by Banks and Solander, 
I observed that a considerable number of the names in Buch’s (i. e. 
Brown's) list are eet misapplied and that others, which have 
dropped out of notice or have been ranked as synonyms, ought to 
be retained. It seem feat to me that in view of this being the earliest 
published attempt at a Madeiran Flora, it might be worth while to 
reprint the list, with modern identifications and such notes as have 
resulted from my investigation. The names in small capitals and 
the localities and notes which occasionally follow them are tran- 
scribed from Buch’ 8 list ; my identifications and notes follow them, 
in square brackets.* I have rearranged the sequence of orders in 
accordance with Banthat and Hooker’s Genera Plantarum; but in 
other seavecis the list is an —_— transcript. 
s to which no synonymy is attached are those which 
are geaceatly iaiaiiad: I have not thought it necessary to add the 
uthority for these, and have not corrected the occasional errors in 
aielling. Many of them t the types from which the descrip- 
tions in Aiton’s Hortus Kewensis were drawn u up. 
Detrninium Consonipa, 
NIGELLA parapet 
UNCULUS REPENS. i 
US z misprint for ereticus. ‘‘In sylvis umbrosis 
Ribeira rie Ey adical. reniform. crenatis sublobatis, caul. 3 part. 
lanceol.” aide s short diagnosis eg that he iiflsber tated this 
plant from the true creticus of Linnx Lowe first distinguished it 
specifically as R. grandifolius in his Py imitie@ (p. 88), but sybee 
quently (Prim. App. v.) restored it to creticus. In 185 
u 
plant and its allies, and restored the n ame grandifolius: this, 
however, had been published earlier by C. A. Meyer for a Siberian 
plant, and Steudel had on this account substituted megaphyllus for 
Lowe’s grandifolius. Lowe (l.c. 74) says that the question of 
priority between the two plants called grandifolius ‘ cannot well be 
settled,’’ as both date from 1880; but this can hardly be the case, 
as Lowe’s paper was not read until Nov. 15 of that year, and was 
not published until 1831. Lowe prefers to retain his own name, 
and suggests R. Meyeri for hte s plant: this is not entered in the 
Kew Index. eer te hee 
G. rer a ii. 484 (1841 
R. iii! ‘ib ai arcticus) Br. in Buch Canar. Ins. 195 
(1825) ; Lowe, Prim. ed. 2, App. v. (1851), non Linn. 
* A considerable number of the names are omitted from the Index Kewensis, 
although so far as they are taken up and identified by Lowe in his Flora the 
vec Ps ce there. I have not thought it necessary to specify these in 
will be readily apparent if the list be compared with the Index. 
Ld 
