﻿NOTES ON BRITISH PLANTS. 865 



separate two closely allied species, and this, one which will not be 

 found in the text-books. In some species this can sometimes be 

 done by the seed-leaves alone, while others are extremely difficult 

 to separate, even when full grown, before flowering. 



Plants in relation to insects offer a wide field of observation. 

 I have found that bees are good botanists. Thev could dis 

 a very closely allied hybrid Verhascum (raised from V. Thopsu, < 

 jtulverulentum). I was much puzzled with five specimens of seedlings 

 of this ; in the first winter they were so alike that I could not be 

 sure which was which ; as they came into flower I found the bees 

 left two plants entirely to themselves (these were pulcenrimtitm). 

 I tied muslin over the three others, but still the bees refused to 

 touch the two named; but, immediately a slit was made in the 

 muslin, found their way in to the others. These were hybrids. 

 Why this was I am unable to say. The next winter I found the 

 only way I could separate these two plants was that the leaves of 

 the hybrids had a much greater quantity of hoar-frost than the 

 others {pulverulentum) ; they were beautiful objects when the sun 

 was on them, as they then became beaded all over with the drops 

 of water. 



The field still to be explored among British plants (outside what 

 I may call laboratory botany) is extensive. Geographical distri- 

 hmum —a second edition of Watson's Compendium would here be ex- 

 tremely useful— especially in the British Isles themselves (here a third 

 edition of Topographical Botany is required) ; the disappearance of 

 plants, whether by natural or artificial means ; careful enumeration 

 of plants of newly broken ground ; the results of drainage and 

 enclosures ; peat deposits, with reference to present and past 

 floras; influence of soils on plants, whether the result of me- 

 chanical, chemical, or hthological characters ; action of frost on 



nation of our lakes, rivers, and ponds. 



I. — STATICE. 



This is a small genus in Britain, but the names its species 

 ought to bear are by no means settled. 



Statice kariflora Drejer, Fl. Exeats. Hafn. p. 121, 1838. 

 Drejer here clearly defines this plant, but, previous to this, Fries, 

 Hunt. i. p. 10 (1832), under 8. Limonimn, mentions that the plant 

 of Scania and Bahusia differs, and defines these differences without 

 actually naming the plants. In his second Mant. p. 17 (1839), he calls 

 th.nn, " 1, Scanioi : i. Bahusiensix," with several wrongly applied 

 synonyms. In the Bot. Notiser for 1844, p. 11, he defines the plant 

 as S. Bahusu nsis. In his Swnm \ eg. St and. p. 200 (1846), he refers 

 for the name to the 1844 publication, thus tacitly ignoring the 

 previous reference. He here divides the species into borealis = Ba- 

 husiuisis and Danica = S. rarijlora Drejer. Notwithstanding this 

 citation of the 1844 name, he says that he considers it ought to bear 

 his name, as, in addition to the Mant. 1832 notes, specimens were 

 issued by him in the Herbarium Normale, fasc. 3, No. 18 (1837), a 

 year before Drejer's description appeared. If this publication is 



