62 THE GENUS FUMARIA IN BRITAIN 



in fact a form which I have seen from Cambridge in several 

 herbaria, and which I myself gathered at Cherry Hinton in 

 1898. 



This plant was redescribed by Babington in 1844, in Eng. Bot. 

 Suppl. 2877, as F. Vaillantii, with a second red-flowered form 

 added that is not referable to F. parviflora ; and both forms are 

 depicted together on the plate as belonging to F. Vaillantii, 

 although the dissections show the bracts, flowers and fruits to be 

 quite distinct. This curious mistake was adjusted by Syme in 

 Eng. Bot. ed. 3, where, with amended descriptions, the figure of 

 Babington's original white-flowered F. Vaillajitii is transferred to 

 F. parviflora, and stands by the side of the acuminate-fruited 

 plant of Eayer, from which the dissections are removed. Syme, 

 however, does not distinguish these forms of F. parviflora as 

 varieties. 



With these conflicting views on the status of the variations of 

 this species, I have found considerable difficulty in deciding how 

 to arrange the forms inhabiting Britain. The original plant of 

 Lamarck, which I have not seen, was clearly glaucous, diffuse and 

 sometimes rampant, with white flowers ; and its fruits were 

 probably not conspicuously pointed. As it appears to have been 

 cultivated, it may not have been normal ; but a large number of 

 S. European specimens that I have examined, which have well- 

 developed flowers and no appearance of abnormality, possess 

 characters that accord perfectly with Lamarck's description, com- 

 bined with subrotund fruits either shortly pointed or obtuse ; and 

 I therefore think, with the majority of authors down to Nicotra, 

 that the specific type must be regarded as a plant of this kind. 

 This form is no doubt identical with Clavaud's var. a. leucantha, 

 which is presumably intended to be F. leucantha Viv. But as 

 Viviani's plant was particularly distinguished by not having 

 acuminate fruits, it would seem preferable to restrict this name to 

 a form of the type with fruits lacking an apiculus, in accordance 

 with the suggestion of Grenier & Godron. 



Other Continental specimens in various herbaria are distinctly 

 more compact and erect in habit, with more glaucous foliage cut 

 into shorter and more channelled segments, and generally rosy- 

 tinted flowers. Their fruits are hardly separable from those of 

 the laxer form, but I doubt whether they ever assume a really 

 diffuse and rampant habit, and they seem to me varietally distinct. 

 Such plants I believe to be identical with F. glaiica Jordan, of 

 which there are authentic examples in Herb. Mus. Brit. I cannot 

 see though that F. glauca differs from F. parviflora sufficiently to 

 be regarded as a distinct species, and so I think these plants are 

 best named var. glauca Clavaud. 



A few other foreign — chiefly French and German — specimens 

 differ again in that this dwarf habit and very glaucous foliage are 

 combined with finer leaf-segments and fruits not subrotund but 

 rather broadly ovate and more or less ogivale or acuminate. As 

 a fruit-distinction of this kind does not seem readily attributable 

 to environment I am disposed to follow Clavaud in separating 



