PLANTS EUROPEX. 87 
Bitton [Spr.] Staite and “ C. divaricata [Dsf.] Richt.” Now it 
seems to us that, granting that Dr. Richter is right in ignoring in 
favour of the ete specific name memphitica, Willkomm’s name, 
C. scleropoides, for the plant on which he founded his genus, it is 
impossible to show any reason why Bentham & Hooker — Spa 
be cited for this species and C. nn as well as for C. ma 
These authors say, under Cutandia :—* Hue pertinent satahi 
Festucam mephiticam Boiss., ae species typica: C. sclero 
i ts . 
mogeton 
and his notes will be found at p. 75. We ie not space to go 
through the whole work, but the following notes will give an ae 
of its style and execution. i per neglectum is placed as 
which 
of S. ramosum Huds. The species of Triglochin have a feminine 
instead of a neuter determination, although Linné named them in 
the latter form. Our species of Alisma are allocated to three 
ages and stand as Alisma rye L., Echinodorus ranunculoide. 
“[1.] Englm. in Aschs, Fl. d. Prov. Brandb. i. 3 651 oe and 
Elisma natans “ [.] tae, in Pringsh. Jahrb. vii. p. 19 (1 70).” 
an eo satotiesed 
now stands as Da: isma Mill. Diet. (1759). Anthoxanthum 
Puellii (which should hate aire one /) is made ee with A, 
aristatum Boiss. (or, as Dr. Richter prefers to write, “ Bss.’’—an 
abbreviation widele would equally stand for Besser), an earlier 
ame. Our “ Holy-grass” stands as ‘ Hieroc. odor [L.] 
Whib. fl. ups. p. 32 (1820) ”’: Linné described it as Holcus odoratus. 
Here the spelling of the genus adopted by its founder is ignored. 
Agrostis nigra is retained as a species peculiar to England. 
‘*‘ Ammophila arenaria [L.] Lk. L. ber. i. p. arcs (1827) ”’ supersedes 
A, arundinacea Soe ae ee and ‘‘ Arrhenatherum oe th] 
M. K. in Rohl. D. . 546 (1828)” poeta A. avenaceum 
Beauv. (1812). a Sil # ‘restricted to S. dura, our other oxloeiéa 
bigte mag to Atropis and Scleropoa. 
Benekeni Syme”’ is recognised as a species; and we 
may rahe this as a text on which to base one or two remarks which 
have suggested themselves in other cases. First, we doubt whether, 
on Dr. Richter’s principles, the name should not stand as ‘‘ Bromus 
Syme.” 
more i 
attributes the species to ie and refers to Eng. Bot. od 8,2 
157, in support of his statement. But Syme does not rank the 
