442 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



that might arise attaches not to S. Damasonium but to S. latifolia, 

 which has been referred to C. longifolia Fritseh and was from the 

 first a doubtful plant (see Journ. Bot. 1907, 240). Any doubt that 

 might remain is, however, removed by Miller's specimens of his 

 two plants which are in the National Herbarium and both 

 represent G. grandiflora. 



With regard to this name, it represents as we have already 

 pointed out (see Journ. Bot. 1907, 105) the Serapias grandiflora L. 

 as further restricted by Scopoli (in full citation it would read 

 S. grandiflora L. emend. Scop.). The suggestion that failing 

 G. latifolia the name should stand as C. alba (Crantz) Simonkai 

 is untenable, for Crantz's genus Epipactis has no claim to con- 

 sideration, including as it does not only the Serapias of Linnaeus, 

 but other Linnean genera, namely Ophrys, Neottia, and Her- 

 minium. We note that Schinz & Thellung quote us incorrectly as 

 citing Cephalanthera grandiflora as of Babington. 



414. Coeallobrhiza. This genus w T as established by J. J. 

 Chatelain " Specimen inaugurale de Corallorhiza " 1760. He 

 names the species C. trifida, which must stand, as the Linnean 

 trivial Corallorhiza (under Ophrys) is inadmissible. 



415. Malaxis paludosa Sw. should be cited from Vet. Akad. 

 Handl. x. 127 (1789). 



422. Crocus officinalis Hudson (1778). Schinz & Thellung 

 substitute the name G. albiflorus Kitaib. (1814), but we see no 

 reason for departing from the view we have taken, the grounds for 

 w r hich we have stated in this Journal (p. 106). 



428. Asparagus officinalis L. For the British plant the 

 restricted name A. maritimus Mill. Gard. Diet. ed. 8, n. 2 (1768), 

 must be adopted. 



430. Polygonatum officinale All. Mr. Druce (in Ann. Scott. 

 Nat. Hist. 1907, 242) points out that Janchen adopts his sugges- 

 tion, which we did not accept, that P. odoratum (Mill.) Druce 

 should supersede P. officinale All, He adds that doubts have been 

 expressed as to the identity of Miller's plant, and these doubts are 

 confirmed by reference to Miller's specimen which is a form of P. 

 midtiflorum. Mr. Druce unfortunately proposes another name 

 P. angulosum, " since Gonvallaria angulosa Lam. Fl. Fr. iii. 268, 

 1778, is earlier than P. officinale All. Fl. Ped. [I] 131 (1785)," but 

 C. angulosa Lam. is a still-born name, being an arbitrary change 

 by Lamarck for G. Polygonatum L. 



431. Maianthemum bifolium must be cited as of Schmidt Fl. 

 Boem. iv. 54 (1794). 



443. Muscari ragemosum Mill. Schinz ft Thellung point out 

 that Miller's name is of doubtful application, and in view of the 

 additional fact that Miller's specimen is an immature plant of M. 

 comosum, it seems best to cite the name as of Lam. & DC. Fl. Fr. 

 ed. 3, iii. 208 (1805). 



447. Juncus obtusiflorus Ehrh. An earlier name for this is 

 J. subnodulosus Schrank Baiersch. FL i. 616 (1789). 



