THE GENUS FUMARlA IN BRITAIN 5^ 



has prevailed as to which of these two names should be pre- 

 ferred. 



F. densifiora was first described by De Candolle in Cat. Plant. 

 Hort. Bot. Monspel. p. 113, from examples found by Ziz near 

 Toulon, in the following terms: — " F. capsulis globosis, racemis 

 oppositifoliis densis, caule erecto, foliis multifidis, lobis linearibus 

 crassiusculis . . . omnino est F. spicata quoad habitum et flore- 

 scentiam sed capsulis globosis nee compressissimis distincta." 



In the Sy sterna Nattirale, ii. p. 137, it was again similarly 

 described, but wdth certain additions. These additions are 

 ". . . pedicellis fructiferis erectis bractea longioribus . . . calycibus 

 dentatis . . . corollas minores quam in F. medico, intense purpureas 

 . . . Sepala F. media, caetera F. officinalis, cujus forsan mera 

 varietas." Further on in this w^ork, as a " species non satis nota," 

 appears F. micrantha Lag., with the following diagnosis: "In 

 Hispania. Folia pinnato-decomposita, linearia, angustissima. 

 Calyces cordato-rotundati corollae tubo latiores." 



This account, both of F. densifiora and of F. micrantha, is 

 virtually repeated in De Candolle's Prodromus. 



It will be seen that there is no allusion in De Candolle's 

 original description to the large sepals peculiar to F. micrantha, 

 and that, although the fruit is described as globose, this term 

 may be intended in a wide sense in contrast to the flattened fruits 

 of F. spicata. 



In the Systeyna Naturale the bracts are stated to be shorter 

 than the fruiting pedicels, while in F. micrantha they are normally 

 longer ; and the sepals are likened to those of F. media, which 

 cannot, in whatever sense that name be interpreted, be said 

 to resemble those of Lagasca's plant. Moreover, De Candolle 

 himself suggests that his F. densifiora may be a variety of F. 

 officinalis, and does not anywhere recognize its connection with 

 F^ micrantha. 



According to the testimony of Boissier {Voyage dans VEspagne, 

 ii. p. 796) and others, the plant collected by Ziz on w^hich F. 

 densifiora was originally founded is an abnormal form of F. 

 ynicrantha, not rare in Southern Europe, while the remaining 

 material under the same name in the Candollean Herbarium is 

 referable to F. officinalis. 



On this ground, that the plant of Ziz — the first to be described 

 by De Candolle — was actually identical with F. micrantha, Grenier 

 and Godron, and later Haussknecht, set aside Lagasca's name in 

 favour of F. densifiora. It is evident, however, that this identity 

 was never recognized by De Candolle ; and as his first account of 

 F. densifiora in Cat. Monspel. seems equally applicable to forms 

 of F. officinalis, while his later ones clearly indicate that species 

 and none makes any mention of the typical features of F. 

 micrantha, I think it is impossible to do otherwise than to regard 

 his name as an ambiguous and invalid one, covering the plants 

 represented in his herbarium, viz., an untypical form of F, 

 micrantha and a dense-flowered variety of F. officinalis. This 

 conclusion is in accord with the arrangement in Parlatore's Mono- 



