246 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



now concern me, my only object being to show that L. his- 

 pantcum Mill, is not — j)^^^^ ^^^"- Williams — identical with L. 

 angustifolium Huds. It is noteworthy that Martyn, in his edition 

 of Miller (1807), places nn. 5 and 6 together under L. perenne 

 as a decumhens and ji erectum respectively — the former will 

 supersede L. perenne a anglicum of Planchon (1848)''' if the 

 English plant be ranked as a variety. L. liispaniciLm is unnoticed 

 by Martyn, which seems to indicate that even then it was regarded 

 as obscure. Willkomm and Lange (Prodr. Fl. Hisp. iii. 549) 

 enter it doubtfully under L. angustifolium, probably because the 

 name liispanicum indicated a Spanish plant which had to be 

 accounted for, as there is no evidence that they consulted Miller's 

 description : Dr. Jackson suggests that the entry in the Kew 

 Index may have originated with this, the question-mark having 

 been accidentally omitted. 



LiNUM BIENNE Mill. 



Although it is thus, I think, clear that Miller's L. liispanicum 

 cannot supersede L. angustifolium Huds., my ' examination of 

 Miller's plants has resulted in the finding of another candidate for 

 priority whose claims cannot be disposed of — a discovery, how- 

 ever, in which I find I have been anticipated by Planchon (loc. cit. 

 167), who places under L. angustifolium Huds., " L. bienne Mill. 

 Herb, in collect. Banksiana ! " f Martyn (I. c.) throws no light 

 on the plant, and the name stands unreduced in the Index 

 Keiuensis, Planchon's identification having been generally over- 

 looked. There can be no doubt as to its accuracy, and Miller's 

 name must stand. Miller, oddly enough, makes no reference to 

 the plant which we have been accustomed to call L. angustifolium 

 as British, either under L. bienne or under L. tenuifolium, under 

 which we might have expected to find it ; it is added by Martyn 

 in the ninth edition. Linnaeus, as Mr. Williams rightly supposes, 

 included the plant — " very improperly," says Smith (Eng. Bot. 

 t. 381) — under L. tenuifolitcm ; he refers to it under this name 

 in his Flora Anglica (1754) and was followed in this by Hudson 

 (El. Angl. 116) and Withering (ed. 1, p. 191 (1776) and ed. 3, ii. 

 317 (1801) ) : in this latter reversion replacing L. angustifolium 

 Huds., which the ever-accurate Stokes had introduced into ed. 2 

 (1787). The earliest record as British, which Mr. Wilhams 

 ascribes to Gerard, should be attributed to Turner (1562) as quoted 

 by Clarke {First Records, 32) : " I have seene flax . . . wilde in 

 Sommersetshire wythin a mile of Welles." 



* Planchon quotes " L. perenne a Anglicum Scbiede L c." {i. e. " in Linn, 

 vol. i. p. 71 "), but no such name appears there, and Schiede incidentally (see 

 above) accepts L. anglicum as a species. 



f It may be noted that in this as in the preceding case Planchon makes no 

 reference to Miller's description in his Gardeners Dictionary — a Nvork which 

 was at that period practically ignored and whose importance in matters nomen- 

 clatorial has only been recognized comparatively recently. 



