WHAT IS ASTRAGALUS HYPOGLOTTIS ? 2i7 



pendula Huds. 3. One fine plant, a little below Holme Moor, 

 towards Croford Bridge. This species is decidedly scarce on the 

 lighter soils, although remarkably abundant in many parts of 

 Somerset on heavy land. — C. helodes Link {laevigata Sm.). 2. 

 Very luxuriant in a small swamp between Dunster and Timbers- 

 combe. — C. binervis Sm. 2. Frequent on the hills near Dunster. 

 — C.fulva Host {Hornschiichiana Hoppe). 3. Common on Clean 

 Moor and other bogs near Wiveliscombe ; the hybrid with 

 C. CEderi Ketz. var. cedocarioa Anderss. occurs on Clean Moor, 

 with the parents — as usual, quite sterile. — G. acutiformis Ehrh. 

 (paludosa Good.). 3. Between Wiveliscombe and Bathealton. 



Milium effusum L. 3. Near Wiveliscombe. 



Calamagrostis epigeios Eoth. 3. Abundant on the Lias, near 

 Badger Street. 4. Hedge-banks, east of Staple Fitzpaine. 



Molinia co&rulea Moench. 3. Moors near Wiveliscombe ; 

 common. 



Glyceria declinata Breb. 2. Dunster. 3. About Wiveliscombe 

 and Bathealton. 



Festuca pratensis Huds. 4. Chard Eeservoir. — F. elatior L. 

 3. Near Wiveliscombe. 4. Chard Eeservoir. 



Polystichum angulare Presl. 2. Stogumber. 



Lastrcea montana Moore {Oreopteris Presl). 2. Croydon Hill, 

 near Dunster ; Cockercombe. 



Equisetum maximu^n Lam. 3. Badger Street. — E. pahcstre L. 

 3. Wiveliscombe. 



WHAT IS ASTRAGALUS HYPOGLOTTIS L. ? 

 By C. C. Lacaita, F.L.S. 



Undoubtedly it is the species subsequently named by Lamarck 

 Astragahis pwyurezis, as already pointed out by Mr. N. E. Brown 

 in Eng. Bot. ed. 3, Suppl. p. 65 (1892), under A. danicus Eetz., 

 and not A. danicus as supposed by Sibthorp, Fl. Oxon. p. 227 

 (1794), by Smith in Eng. Bot. t. 274 (1795), by De Candolle, 

 Astrag. p. 118 (1802), and Prodr. ii. p. 281 (1825), and by Bunge, 

 Astrag. p. 83 (1868), nor A. asperulus Duf. = A. epiglottoides 

 Willk. as proposed by Lange. But as Mr. Brown bases his 

 conclusion on a certain specimen in the Linnean herbarium 

 which he assumes, without discussion, to be " Linna3us's type 

 specimen of A. hypoglottis," and does not allude to the difficulties 

 that had previously been raised by Bunge and by Lange to this 

 identification, and to the recognition of the specimen in question 

 as representing Linnaeus's type, it seems desirable to attempt a 

 more complete proof of his assertion, which unfortunately can 

 only be done by entering into considerable detail. 



The wrong road was first taken by the English botanists 

 Sibthorp and Sir J. E. Smith. They both knew the specimen in 

 Herb. Linn, relied on by N. E. Brown ; they both considered it 

 to be Linnaeus's type of A. hypoglottis, but they both fell into the 

 error of supposing this specimen to be identical with the British 



