434 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



that C. latifolius is now r« v 



does not justify setting it aside as a name established in contra- 

 vention of the Eules. If we extend the term still-born beyond 

 cases of the mere substitution of names such as those quoted 

 from Lamarck, it becomes impossible to set a limit to its use. 

 It is then a botanical question concerned with the limitation of 



species. 



A few alterations in the attribution of genera will be corrected 



in the next edition of the List. In some cases where we see no 

 reason to depart from our original position we have made no 

 note : e. g. as to Malva rottmdifolia, about which there is ad- 

 mittedly a divergence of opinion, 



A note may be added on Linnaeus's Flora Anglica. A careful 

 consideration of this list of plants has convinced us that the 

 names contained therein must be regarded as bearing the same rank 

 as they do in the Species Plantarum. Where a species in the 

 latter contained varieties which occur in the British flora, the 

 species-name is introduced only with the first variety, e. g. : 



Medicago polymorpha arab. Primula veris officin. 



minima. elatior. 



acaulis. 



In the ninth edition of Babington's Manual, Messrs. Groves 

 use P. acaulis L., and in this Journal for 1906 (p. 179) refer this 

 name to Linnaeus's Flora Anglica. But a comparison of this and 

 other cases with the Species Plantar um shows that Linnaeus 

 always inserted varieties in the Flora Anglica in this way — that is, 

 without repeating the species-name. We should read the refer- 

 ence in Flora Anglica as P. veris [var.] elatior, P. veris [var,] 

 acaulis, &c. A further proof is found in the fact that in Spec. 

 Plant, ed. 2, which was later than the Flora Anglica (1754), these 

 names occupy the same rank as in ed. 1, i.e. appear as varieties. 

 It is absurd to suppose that Linnseus in 1754 raised to the rank 

 of species plants which a year before he had considered varieties, 

 to which rank he again reduced them in 1762 ; yet on no other 

 supposition can these names be regarded as of specific rank. An 

 interesting confirmation is found in the method of citation under 



Trifol 



Flora Anglica Linnseus has 



thus in the 



ifolium Melilotus offic. 



Ornithopodioid 



Here, as in the previously cited cases, he omits the repetition of 

 the middle word ; the citation in full is Trifolmm Melilotus 

 Ornithopodioides. We assume that no one would quote this as 

 T. Ornithopodioides L. 



As in our previous notes, the numher prefixed to the genus is 

 that which it bears in the List. 



4. Adonis annua L. Schinz & Thellung use A. antumnalis 

 L. Sp. Pi. ed. 2, not A. annua L., which included two species. 

 We consider that the name given by Linnaeus should, if possible, 



