NOTES ON LIMONIUM 429 



Norfolk about 1746 (Blackst. Spec. 47), and a little later in Lin- 

 colnshire by Sir J. Banks; and the plant was at first confused 

 with the Statice reticulata of Linnaeus, Sp. PI. 275 (1753). 



Under this specific name, but in the genus Limonium, Miller 

 (Gard. Diet. ed. 8, 1768) mentions the discovery, and states that 

 it also " grows naturally in Sicily," the inference being that he 

 refers to the S. reticulata L. To show the confusion of species 

 then existing, the specimen illustrating Miller's plant in his own 

 herbarium is the endemic Spanish S. dichotoma Cav. 



In the old British Floras, and in the early editions of Babing- 

 ton's Manual, our plant appears as S. reticulata L., but in Ann. 

 Mag. Nat. Hist. 441 (1849), Babington pointed out that Boissier, 

 in DC. Prodr. xii. 656, considered the Linnean plant to be probably 

 identical with S. cancellata Bernh., but had rejected the name, as 

 it had been confused with so many species. With this Babington 

 concurred, and, following Boissier, identified our British plant 

 with the S. caspia'' of Willdenow. 



We may dismiss for the present S. reticulata L., and continue 

 the line of research at the point where Babington left the matter. 

 By the kindness of the Berlin Museum authorities I have seen the 

 type specimens t of Willdenow's S. caspia and compared them 

 with his original description in Enum. Hort. Bot. Berol. 336 

 (1809), which runs : " Foliis spathulatis obtusis subretusis, scapo 

 erecto ramosissimo scabro, ramis sterilibus pectinatim ramosis, 

 floribus confertissiinis, bracteis membranaceis diaphanis. ,, 



Mention is made here, also, that the species is synonymous 

 with the M S. reticulata M. Bieb. Fl. Taur.-Caucas. i. 250 (1808) 

 (non Linn, nee Bocc.), M a view which M. Bieberstein himself adopts 

 (hi. 253, 1819), where he replaces "reticulata" by S. caspia Willd. 



The description given above may well apply, as indeed the 

 specimens themselves show, to our British plant, with the excep- 

 tion of "foliis . . . subretusis " ; but, as Babington (I.e. 443) has 

 pointed out, this character may have originated in the apex of the 

 leaf being strongly recurved, as sometimes happens, and I have 

 little doubt that the conclusion arrived at by Babington as regards 

 the correct place for our plant was correct. 



Prior to the date of Willdenow's S. caspia, our plant was 

 observed by Gouan in the district of Montpellier, South France, 

 and described by him (Fl. Monspel. 231, 1765) as a variety of 

 S. Limonium'. "y foliis obovatis. Bellidifolia." The description 

 is brief, but a reference given, " Mag. Bot. 155, hort. 119," enabled 

 Grenier & Godron (Fl. Fr. ii. 749, 1850) to prove that Gouan's 

 plant was undoubtedly the species under discussion. Gouan's 

 herbarium, at Kew, contains no specimens of this plant that may 



be regarded as M type." 



De Candolle (Fl. Fr. hi. 421, 1805) appears to be the first author 



who described our plant as a species, o. belUdifolia ; I have seen 



* This is sometimes found erroneously written " caspica Willd., M and 



indeed is so spelt in his own herbarium. 



t The cover contains five sheets. Nos. 1-3 and 5 are S. caspia ; No. 4 is 



S. decipiens Ledeb. 



