THE GENUS FUMARIA IN BRITAIN 49 



necht. The plant intended is of rampant habit, with broad leaf- 

 segments, small pale flowers, and erect racemes of large fruits, 

 and although Hammar thought it the most distinct of his varieties, 

 it seems to differ from his a vulgaris mainly in its smaller flowers, 

 and Haussknecht may have been wise in ignoring it. It may be 

 held, at any rate, that Hammar's description points to a shade- 

 form, and we certainly have in Britain very similar plants whose 

 features are due solely to immediate environment. 



There is, however, a further rampant form, apparently found 

 in this country chiefly in chalk districts, whose characters are 

 more fixed. This is likewise notable for its relatively small and 

 pale flowers, which are usually borne in very long racemes, but 

 its fruits differ from those of Hammar's plant in being smaller, on 

 an average, than in the type, and carried on slenderer pedicels ; 

 and the foliage is almost invariably glaucous, ample and somewhat 

 finely cut. The rampant habit seems constant in spring as well 

 as summer, and normally it is a distinct and graceful plant though, 

 if shade-grown, not easily to be distinguished from other forms of 

 the species similarly nurtured. In recent years more than one 

 British botanist has suggested that it deserves a name, and as it 

 cannot be satisfactorily identified with either of the forms or 

 varieties already referred to, I am distinguishing it as var. elegans. 

 It is fairly well represented by Eeichenbach's figure of F. media 

 Lois., which I believe to be drawn from an ill-grown example of 

 it ; and it is the form of F. officinalis that has been most commonly 

 confused by British botanists with the Murales. 



Of F. Wirtgeni, which, as already stated, was reduced by 

 Haussknecht to a variety of F. officinalis, there is satisfactory 

 material at the British Museum and at Kew, including specimens 

 collected by Wirtgen and by Haussknecht. Wirtgen's specimens, 

 which are in only moderate condition, show little resemblance 

 to F. Vaillantii, having lax racemes bearing on long slender 

 pedicels as many as thirty-six flowers (Billot, Fl. G. et G. no. 1603). 

 Such fruits as remain are retuse as in ordinary F. officinalis, and 

 the specimens appear to me inseparable from the variety elegans. 

 Haussknecht's specimen, on the other hand, is a different form, 

 with few-flowered racemes, shorter pedicels, smaller sepals, and 

 more rounded fruits, and it agrees fairly well with the tabular 

 diagnosis in his Monograph. In a limited degree it show^s an 

 approach towards F. Vaillantii, and may have originated in a 

 cross between this species and F. officinalis, but as it seems 

 a perfectly fertile and widely established form, I think, wdth 

 Haussknecht, it is best regarded as a variety of the latter. Quite 

 recently I have seen in Mr. Lacaita's herbarium a specimen from 

 Wirtgen differing from those in Herb. Mus. Brit, and identical 

 with Haussknecht's plant, and another similar plant from Wirt- 

 gen in Mr. C. Bailey's collection is labelled F. Vaillantii Lois. — 

 from which it is evident that some mixture of Wirtgen's specimens 

 or labels must at some time have taken place. 



In Britain a plant identical, I believe, with Haussknecht's 

 var. Wirtgeni occurs in chalk districts and elsewhere in the 



Journal of Botany, June, 1912. [Supplement.] / 



