﻿amples : 



considered sufficient, Fries's name would stand ; but I do not think 



The first notice of this as a British plant was in a note by Mr. 

 Notcutt in the Phytologist for Dec. 1842 (i. 429), under the name 

 8. tatarica L., a name suggested by Dr. Lindley, and withdrawn on 

 p. 492. In May, 1843 (/. c. 561-63), Mr. Henfrey defines it as the 

 S. rariflora of Drejer, with a figure. The specimens came from 

 Fareham, Hants. In June of the same year Prof. Babington (I. c 

 594) gives some notes on it, and while" considering the Scottish 

 specimens to be the plant of Drejer, expresses some doubt as to the 

 Fareham plant. 



Do our specimens fit in with Fries's description of his two 

 varieties? Here I think the answer must be "Yes" and "No." 

 To me, the nearest approach to his borealis is found in sp< eim< ns 

 from Lancashire and Cheshire ; to his danica in some of the Scotch 

 very gradation between these can be found on 

 i. A difference in height, branching of the spikes, 

 curving or not of the apices, &c, will at times be produced by local 

 and climatal causes, or brought about by a dry or rainy season. 

 Irish specimens (Mr. H. C. Hart) seem to clearly represent danica, 

 but I have not seen such extreme borealis from Ireland as those 

 from Fleetwood, Lancashire, gathered by Dr. Fraser. 



Other notices of this plant will be found in Phxjtol. i. 812, by 

 Mr. Notcutt ; in Ann. Nat. Hist. June, 1849, p. 439, by Prof. 

 Babington. 



S. Limonium L. S P . PL ed. 1, vol. i. p. 274 (1753). Dr. Boswell, 



in Fnflish Botany, makes S. Behen Drejer and S. Bahmimisis Fr. 

 subspecies under S. Limonium, and says the Linnean herb, specimen 



S. IhihusiemUYt. In Nyman and elsewhere, S. Behen and N. 

 Limonium L. (Beichb.) are made separate species, with S. rm-ijhra 

 Drejer as a third. Following Nyman, S. Limonium L. (Reielib.i is 

 a British plant, but not a Scandinavian species, where its place is 

 taken by S. Behen Drejer, which many Scandinavian authors quote 

 as >'. snmir,, Fr. ; while S. Behen Drejer is not a British plant (fide 

 Nymani. although Drejer, !. c, cites N. Limonium, Kn,j. Bot. 102; 

 this is the plate Syme gives as 8. Behen v. genuina 



Lange (Handb. Dansk. FL 1888) simply gives the two as 

 synonyms. If Lange and Neuman (Bot. Notiser, 1883, p. 52) 

 are right, then it seems that this case comes under Mr. H. C. 

 Watson's remarks as to collective species. 



If we write S. Limonium L., we mean both Behen and rariflora, 

 or either, as the case may be ; hence, unless used in the sense it is 

 by Syme, it becomes misleading. But if we write 8. Behen or 

 8. rariflora Drejer, we define what we mean (always supposing that 

 Limonium and Behen are not separable). Lange (Nomend. FL 

 Danica, p. 126) follows the views of Fries, and includes under 

 Limonium L., S. Bahusiensis Fr., borealis Fr. IS. rariflora Drej.), 

 V. danica Fr., and S. scanica Fr. (Behen Drej.). 



Notwithstanding all this, Sir J. D. Hooker (Stud. Flora) writes 

 " S. Limonium proper, var. Behen Drej."; and "subsp. S. rariflora 



