LINN-EUS'S 'FLORA ANGLICA ' 313 



hundred wrong, some necessarily trivial, but others of a serious 

 nature"; and he proceeds to give a list of some of these. No 

 doubt Linnaeus made mistakes ; most of us do, not even excluding 

 Mr. Druce, as the very first example which he gives of Linnaeus's 

 shortcomings sufficiently shows. It may be worth while to deal 

 with this somewhat at length on account of the inference which 

 it contains with regard to the use of the Flora Anglica, from 

 which Mr. Druce cites a name which he prints as "Salicornia 

 fruticosa " giving as the "modern name" S. perennis Mill. On 

 this he has the following note, which I reprint with necessary 

 corrections : — 



" This is treated as a variety of S. europcea in ' Sp. PL' p. 1753 

 [recte p. 3, 1753] . But if the ' Fl. Angl.' is valid, our British 

 plant becomes Salicornia fruticosa. In the 2d. ed. ' Sp. PI.' it 

 is also given as a species, but other synonyms which do not refer 

 to our British species are added [there are no additions to the 

 synonymy], and there is no reference to ' Fl. Angl.' or Kay's 

 'Synopsis.' " 



Mr. Druce seems to think that this case corresponds with that 

 of Ulmus cavipestris and Viola canina, and apparently gives it as 

 an example of what would happen "if the ' Fl. Angl.' is valid." 

 It seems to me, however, that the supposed difficulty arises from 

 a misunderstanding of the scope of the Flora. 



There is no reason for supposing that the Flora Anglica was 

 intended by Linnaeus to represent critical determinations. It 

 was an adaptation of the Species Plantarum to the third edition 

 of Eay's Synopsis, and the species and varieties of the Flora are 

 equivalent to those in the Species. The printing of the Flora in 

 double columns necessitated the placing of the varietal name 

 under that of the species, thus : 



" Salicornia europea herbac. 136-1 



fruticos. -2" 



" Primula veris officinal. 284-3 

 elatior -2 



acaulis -1 " 



In the case of Primula, as in most of the others, the varieties 

 in ed. 2 of the Species bear the same rank, and, as was pointed 

 out in this Journal for 1907 (p. 431) "it is absurd to suppose that 

 Linnaeus in 1754 [the date of the Flora Anglica'] raised to the 

 rank of species plants which a year before he had considered 

 varieties, to which rank he again reduced them in 1762." -•' In 

 the case of the Salicornia, however, Linnaeus in 1762 raised the 

 variety of ed. 1 to the rank of a species, but there is not the 

 slightest reason for supposing that this was his intention in the 

 Flora Anglica. 



Mr. Druce seems to consider this a case analogous to that 

 w^hich has caused the Flora Anglica to be cited for the restricted 



* Mr. Druce quotes this with approval, but writes: "Mr. Britten says 

 (Journ. Bot. Sup. xii. [xlii.] 1900) " etc.; the passage is there given as a quotation 

 from a paper written in collaboration with Dr. Kendle in 1907. 



Journal of Botany. — Vol. 50 [Oct. 1912.] z 



