THE GENUS FUMARIA IN BRITAIN 15 



Lancaster, 1907, A. Wilson \ 61. S. E. Yorks : Skipwith {Hb. 

 Mus. Brit.) ! 62. N. E. Yorks : Clifton, near York, 1842 (Hh. 

 Mus. Brit.) ! Northallerton (Hh. Mus. Brit.) ! 66. Durham : 

 Embleton {Hh. A. G. More) ! 68. Gheviotland : Bamborough 

 {Hb. Somerville) ! 69. Westmoreland and Lake Lanes : Bardsea 

 {Hb. Mus. Brit.) ! Grasmere {Hb. E. F. Linton) ! Howtown 

 {Hb. Miss Palmer) \ 70. Cumberland: {Hb. Groves) ! 71. Isle of 

 Man : Port Erin {Hb. Hiern) ! 79. Selkirk : Near Galashiels 

 {Hb. Mus. Brit.) ! 80. Roxburgh : Kelso {Hb. Mus. Brit.) ! 82. 

 Haddington : {Hb. Bosioell) ! 83. Edinbttrgh : {Hh. Mtis. Brit.) ! 

 Dalhousie {Hb. Mus. Dublin) ! 85. Fife : Dunearn Hill {Hb. Mus. 

 Brit.) ! Kirkaldy {Hb. Druce) ! 90. Forfar : {Hb. Mus. Brit.) ! 

 111. Orkneij : {Hb. Bosioell) ! Mainland, E. S. Marshall, no. 2412 

 (ex parte) ! 



Subsection 2. Medice or Murales of Haussknecht. 



Peduncles usually shorter than in subsection 1. Pedicels less 

 thickened towards the tip, generally erect- spreading in fruit. 

 Flowers of the later racemes sometimes notably fewer and less 

 developed than those preceding them. Bracts generally shorter 

 than the fruiting pedicels. Sepals usually more or less toothed, 

 rarely much broader than the corolla, or exceeding one-third of its 

 whole length. Fruit obtuse or subacute, obscurely keeled, and, 

 when fresh, with an indistinct fleshy neck, which is narrower or 

 broader than the tip of the pedicel. 



This group is the most difficult of the whole genus, and one 

 on which authors have shown the widest divergences of opinion. 



So far as British plants are concerned, an elucidation of these 

 difiiculties was formerly not essential, but with the recent dis- 

 covery of several new forms, it becomes necessary to consider the 

 general subsection more closely. 



The Murales are divided by Haussknecht into two classes, 

 according to the rugosity or smoothness of the dried fruit ; the 

 first, with rugose fruit, consisting of one species only, F. Gussonei 

 Boiss., and the second, with fruit smooth or nearly so, comprising 

 F. Beuteri Boiss., F. sepiicm Boiss., F. muralis Sond., F. Borcei 

 Jord., and F. Munhyi Boiss. This means of segregation is perhaps 

 as serviceable in the herbarium as any that could be devised, but 

 it is not entirely satisfactory, for the rugosity is often obscure in 

 the forms of F. Gussonei before the fruits are ripe, and gradations 

 of this character certainly occur in some of the other species, with 

 the occasional result that individual fruits which should be rugose 

 will appear smoother than others which show in a marked degree 

 the finer wrinkling that is described as rugulose. Under F. 

 Gussonei a number of forms are grouped that had previously 

 been described as species, and among them are F. Bastardi 

 Boreau, F. confusa Jord., F. vagans Jord., and F. affinis Hamm. 

 Haussknecht appears to have united these plants as one species 

 after an extensive examination of dried material but with little 

 knowledge of the living plants, and his views differ in a marked 

 degree from those of Hammar, whose descriptions are largely 



