THE GENUS FUMARIA IN BRITAIN 69 



varieties have been extensively distributed from North Italy, no 

 allusion is made by Nicotra to either F. Laggeri or F. Chavini. 



As a British plant F. Vaillantii appears to have been first 

 described by Arnott in Eeport Bot. Soc. Edin. p. 104 (1840). The 

 description furnished leaves much to be desired, and, rather 

 curiously, Eng. Bot. 590 {F. parviflora) is quoted in illustration, 

 but in spite of this I am inclined to think the plant intended was 

 .true F. Vaillantii. A little later Babington described under this 

 name the Cambridge variety of F. parviflora, which, as already 

 explained, he subsequently associated (Eng. Bot. Suppl. 2877) 

 with another red-flowered form not referable to Lamarck's species. 

 Specimens of these two forms appear to have been distributed by 

 Babington, for Haussknecht, in his account of F. parvijiora, 

 remarks that he had seen from Bonder's herbarium Babington's 

 Cambridge examples of F. Vaillantii, which were partly F. parvi- 

 flora and partly F. Vaillantii var. Laggeri (= var. Chavini). 



As Haussknecht thus refers a Cambridge specimen to F. 

 Vaillantii var. Chavini, it becomes necessary to consider the 

 probability of its being a British form, and on reflection I think 

 that Babington's red-flowered figure in Eng. Bot. Suppl. 2877 

 really depicts this variety rather than the type of F. Vaillantii. 

 A specimen of Babington's in Herb. Mus. Brit, labelled " Gogma- 

 gog Hills," without date, also seems to be var. Chavini, and I 

 have another, collected on Fleam Dyke by Mr. Hiern, that is very 

 similar. There is a plant of the same form at Kew also, labelled 

 ''F. Vaillantii, Littlebury, ne£ir Safi'ron Walden, J. S. Mill, 1867." 

 These British specimens do not exactly match well-grown Swiss 

 examples of F. Chavini, inasmuch as their outer petals are more 

 narrowly winged. But they show the same kind of leaf-cutting, 

 which separates them from ordinary F. Vaillantii, and as finely 

 developed corollas might be expected in Alpine situations, the 

 floral differences may be attributed to environment, and I conse- 

 quently follow Haussknecht in regarding them as states of var. 

 Chavini and so adding this name to the British list. 



It may be desirable to point out that F. Vaillantii, in an 

 aggregate sense, differs essentially from F. parviflora in its 

 slenderer habit, uniformly flat leaf-segments, shortly peduncled 

 and not subsessile racemes, shorter and narrower bracts, narrower 

 sepals, pink instead of white corollas, with the upper petal clearly 

 emarginate, and more rounded and less distinctly keeled fruits. 



The description, kc, of F. Vaillantii follows: — 

 F. Vaillantii Loiseleur in Desvaux Journ. Bot. ii. p. 358 (1809), 

 and Notice, p. 102 (1810) ; Handschuch, De Plant. Fum. 

 p. 37 (1832): Koch, Svn. Fl. Germ. ed. 2, p. 1018 (1815); 

 Gren. k Godr. Fl. de Fr. i. p. 69 (1817) ; Hamm. Mon. p. 11 

 (1857); Haussknecht in Flora, p. 411 (1873); Willkomra cl- 

 Lange, Fl. Hisp. iii. p. 883 (1880) ; Clavaud, Fl. de la 

 Gironde, p. 51 (1882); Kouy c^' Foucaud, Fl. de Fr. i. p. 180 

 (1893) ; Nicotra, Le Fumar. Ital. p. 67 (1897). 

 F. tenuisecta subsp. F. Vaillayitii Syme, Eng. Bot. ed. 3, i. 

 p. 113 (1863). 



h 



