150 THE JOURNAL OF BUTANY 
SOME ENTIRE-LEAVED FORMS OF LAMIUM. 
By G. S. Bounezr, F.L.S. 
As Mr. Dunn has well shown,* from a study of their distri- 
bution, the majority of those well-known weeds of cultivation, the 
deadnettles, which figure in our floras, are mere colonists, occurring 
only in cultivated land, and thus extending far beyond their original 
area of distribution. Speaking of L. amplesicaule, moreover, he 
suggests that this species has actually originated under such arti- 
ficial conditions. Such may, therefore, also be the origin of three 
well-marked forms with entire leaves which are represented in the 
can find is in Joncquet’s Hortus (1659), p. 69, where merely the 
name ‘‘ Lamium Parietarie foliis’’ occurs, followed by the authority 
‘‘D. Brunyer.” There is no mention of the plant in either the 
first (1653) or the second (1655) editions of Brunyer’s Hortus Regius 
Blesensis ; and it is noteworthy that in Morison’s first description 
of it (Hort. Reg. Bles. (1669) p. 279), and in the quotation and 
translation of the name by Sutherland (Hort. Edin. (1683) 181), 
both quoted by Mr. Britten, there is no mention of any Virginian 
or American origin for the plant. It is, perhaps, also worth noting 
) 
speaking of L. purpureum. 
ukenet’s enumeration (Almagestum (1696), p. 208) runs: 
‘‘Lamium album Parietarie folio Virginianum, Phytogr. Tab. 41, 
fig. 1. Lamium Parietarie facie, Moris. Prelud. Bot. 278. Lamium 
Parietariz folio Bruynero, Hort. Jonequet. 69.” The type of the 
gure—not a very good one—in his Phytographia is in the Sloane 
Herbarium (Ixxxiii. f. 238), and seems to have been gathered in 
Edward Morgan’s Westminster Physick Garden ; but, as the many 
references to that collection given by Mr. Britten clearly show, the 
plant was present in many botanical gardens in the latter part of 
the seventeenth cent 
: synonym; nor does the unfortunate fact that 
lander has endorsed a sheet of the Banksian herbarium, bearing 
not only this form but also another, with the name L,. molle alter 
the effect of his published description. 
In Sir J. E. Smith’s herbarium there is no such confusion, this 
* Journ. Bot. 1902, p. 356, 
