﻿(kindly lent to me), labelled "Cochlearia arctica Sohtnd. Lapponia 

 occid., in salsis ad Tromsoe, Jul. 1875. Leg. Eeuterman," may 

 perhaps also belong here ; but, being in flower only, it cannot be 

 determined with certainty. I may mention that Dr. Focke, who 

 recently saw micacea growing in my garden, was reminded by it of 

 a form which he had seen from Finland. Doubtless it will be 

 found in Northern Europe, if searched for. 



My own first acquaintance with the subject of this notice was 

 m August, 1887, when I met with it on Ben Lawers, and observed 

 points of difference from our common alpine species. Roots were 

 sent home, and it has been in cultivation ever since. My first 

 impression (endorsed by Prof. Babington), that it was the true C. 

 groetdandica L., was shown to be erroneous by the discovery of that 

 littoral plant in E. Boss and W. Sutherland, specimens of which 

 were confirmed by Prof. Lange, of Copenhagen. Two years later, 

 Mr. P. J. Hanbury and myself collected on Am Binnein the striking 

 long-fruited form mentioned above, which has also been grown in 

 my garden. Besides gathering it afresh on Ben Lawers in 1891 

 (together with a different plant, which deserves further attention), 

 I found it sparingly in 1893 on a hill overlooking Loch Tulla, 

 when m the company of Mr. W. A. Shoolbred. 



The extreme difficulty of this variable genus is well known to 

 students, and I should not have ventured to put forward the present 

 Plant as distinct, but for its essential constancy when grown for 

 L°™ e y T S " nder changed conditions, and its coming true 



from seed. Forms of alpma Watson, under the same circumstances 

 remain about equally constant, as do danica, officinalis, and qrom- 

 landica Anyone is, of course, free to take into account only an 

 aggregate^ C.polymorpha" corresponding to the Benthamic "Rubus 

 Jrvtuosu* ; but this treatment is hardly calculated to increase 

 knowledge or promote accuracy. If such utterances as Mr. N. E. 

 Biown s crude and offhand dismissal of the Epilobium hybrids, in 

 the Supplement to English Botany, ed. 8, or Sir J. D. Hooker's 

 IS? C ?° d r?x°? ° f the Hanb ™ a * Hieracia, in the popular 

 lw« °j ♦ la l- Uf V ar \ t0 be taken as realJ y representing the 

 v lews and teaching of our botanical Gamaliels, it becomes a serious 

 question whether or no "critical" plants are worth studying at all. 

 For my own part, I think that field-botanists have some ground of 

 complain , when careful and deliberate conclusions, arrived at as 

 the result of prolonged research in the open, the garden, and the 

 hastily tossed aside as worthless, without their properly 

 investigating the matter, by those whose expressions of opinion 

 deservedly carry great weight, and whose reasoned criticisms would 

 be very valuable. This ultra-conservative tendency, while it has 

 doubtless spared us some errors, has hitherto kept our knowledge of 

 o^e oS^t m g StaQdard ° f C0 ^P le ^ ness atta!ned 



But to return to C. micacea. As it occurs in a wild state, this 

 a small plant, rarely measuring 6 in. across when in flower and 



