314 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



use of Ulmus campestris and Viola canina,'''- but the cases are in 

 no way parallel. To adopt the name Salicornia fruticosa would 

 be to raise a variety to specific rank : with the Ulmus and Viola 

 there is only a limitation of their application. The definitions in 

 the Species Plantarum are admittedly widely comprehensive ; and 

 it is clear that Linnaeus regarded them as including the British 

 plants described by Eay. This is a distinct limitation of the 

 names, although Linnaeus did not himself so intend it, and the 

 names are therefore retained for the British plants — ex parte 

 being understood in each case. The alternative to their adoption 

 would seem to be the abandonment of the names altogether as 

 indefinite, but it is generally recognized that such abandonment 

 should only be made in cases of absolute necessity. 



It would be interesting to know on what ground Mr. Druce 

 bases his assertion that S. fruticosa L. = S. perennis Mill. Dr. 

 Moss, who has paid special attention to the genus, has gone very 

 fully into the matter in the Beport of the Botanical Exchange 

 Club for 1910 (p. 588) and adduces what seems to me conclusive 

 evidence that the S. fruticosa of Sp. PL ed. 2 is not Miller's 

 S. perennis. I quote the following sentence, which it is not easy 

 to understand how Mr. Druce can have overlooked: "It is true 

 that Linn^us in his ' Flo. Angl.' (1754) refers Kay's plant (' Syn.' 

 p. 136, no. 2, 1724) to S. europcea var. fruticosa ; and as Bay's 

 plant is S. perennis Mill. (= S. radicans Sm.) it might be urged 

 that S. fruticosa is therefore a British plant, and that the latter 

 name must supersede S. perennis Mill. ; but the * Flora Anglica ' 

 of Linnaeus cannot be used to supersede an unmistakable diag- 

 nosis in the ' Species Plantarum.' " In the face of this clear 

 statement from an expert, I am at a loss to conjecture how Mr. 

 Druce can maintain (as is shown by his use of the w^ord " also ") 

 the identity of the var. fruticosa of Fl. Angl. with the S. fruticosa 

 of Sp. PI. ed. 2. 



I do not propose to examine further Mr. Druce' s list of 

 determinations, which do not seem to me to affect the main 

 question at issue. I would however suggest that the preceding 

 remarks have made it clear that they should not be accepted 

 without investigation. 



SHOBT NOTES. 



Erica cineeea L. — Mr. T. W. Hazelby, of Eingwood, Hants, 

 has sent me a remarkable form of Erica cinerea L. from the 

 immediate neighbourhood of his home. Whilst there can, I think, 

 be no question as to its specific identity, its distinctions are 

 apparent at a glance. The fiowers are unusually large, and the 

 corolla is cleft almost to its base ; the sepals seem also to de- 

 part from the type. The flowers appear in every way perfect. 

 Neither foliage nor flower show any sign of a suggested hybrid 



* A reference to Mr. Wilraott's paper in Journ. Bot. 1911 (p. 293) will 

 show that the case of Viola canina by no means rests entirely on the Flora 

 Anglica, 



