THE GENUS FUMARIA IN BRITAIN 61 



species and Hammar's p segetalis ; and adds two other varieties, 

 y latisecta, with lanceolate leaf-segments, found in Dalmatia and 

 Arabia, and ^ sinaitica, a low, almost caespitose form, collected 

 by Boissier in Arabia. Of the species, as commonly seen in 

 Europe, he recognizes no varieties, but gives three forms, a. erecta, 



b. diffusa and c. umhrosa, which are more or less analogous with 

 his forms of F. officinalis and regarded really as states dependent 

 on environment. F. leucantha Viv. is referred to F. diffusa, and 

 F. glauca Jord. to F, umhrosa ; and no mention is made of differ- 

 ences in the fruits. 



A somewhat similar treatment of the species, as found in 

 Spain, is adopted in Willkomm & Lange's Flora His]janica (1880), 

 where Haussknecht's forms erecta and umhrosa are inserted as 

 varieties, in addition to var. segetalis Hamm. ; and another allied 

 plant, collected in Aragon, is distinguished as a new species, 

 F. cces'pitosa Lose. 



In Clavaud's Fl. de la Gironde (1882) an altogether different 

 system of classification is adopted, and the species is divided into 

 three varieties, viz., a. leucantha, diffuse in habit and not very 

 glaucous, leaf-segments long and not subcapillary, flowers white, 

 and fruit subglobular and obscurely mucronate ; b. glauca, dwarfer 

 and very glaucous, with leaf-segments short and subcapillary, 

 fiowers white or rosy, and fruit nearly as obtuse as in a. ; and 



c. acuminata, similar to b. in habit, foliage, and flowers, but with 

 fruit clearly ogivale and mucronate, with less marked apical pits. 

 The first two varieties are further subdivided into forms based on 

 variations of the sepals. A figure is furnished showing the differ- 

 ences in the sepals and fruits, and exsiccata are quoted for the 

 varieties glauca and acuminata. 



According to Rouy & Foucaud s Fl. de France (1893) the 

 French forms of this species, other than the type, are a sub- 

 variety acuminata (Clavaud), a var. /5 iwihrosa (Haussk.), and var. 

 y glauca (Jord.); and Nicotra, in Le Fumar. Ital. (1897), practi- 

 cally follows Clavaud for the Italian forms, making F. leucantha 

 a synonym of the type, which is characterized as " F. . . . caulibus 

 . . . diffusis vel adscendentibus . . . acheniis . . . globosis . . . vix 

 mucronulatis," and adding var. j3 glauca {= F. glauca Jord.), 

 which is said to be " Humilis . . . intense glauca . . . foliorum 

 segmentis abbreviatis . . . racemis densioribus, acheniis conspicue 

 carinatis." 



In British botany F. parvifl^ora has continuously found a place 

 in our Floras since its introduction by Smith and Sowerby in 

 1799, but I can trace only one attempt to distinguish any of its 

 varieties. This is in Babington's paper of 1810, where, after 

 describing briefly and figuring, after Eeichenbach, F. parviff^ora 

 Lam. (of which he states he had seen no native specimens), 

 Babington proceeds to describe, as a British species, F. Vaillantii 

 Lois. The plant that he diagnoses and figures, however, and 

 which he thought to be plentiful throughout England, has almost 

 capillary leaf-segments and white flowers, and is obviously not 

 F, Vaillantii but a form of F. parviflora with obtuse fruits. It is 



