\V()01>KIA ALPINA. 



85 



the capsules after their removal. It may also be here observed, 

 that figure c represents a somewhat intermediate form from 

 Scotland ; figure d another from Llyn-y-cwn, and, judging from 

 the locality, probably referrible to W. Ilvensis ; and figure e, a 

 plant of the present species from Ben Lawers. 



Concerning the distinctness of spe- 

 cies so similar as this and the preced- 

 ing, much difference of opinion must 

 always prevail. It will be seen, by my 

 quotation from Bolton, that that au- 

 thor strongly insists on maintaining 

 them as species. Sir J. E. Smith also 

 considers them distinct ; in describing 

 this species, he contrasts the charac- 

 ters of the two in these words : — " Ra- 

 ther smaller than the foregoing, and 

 less [ ? more ] upright, with a more 

 [? less] rusty aspect. Stalk less elas- 

 tic. Leaflets shorter, rounder, with 

 more rounded lobes, and broader at 

 the base, not quite so deeply pinnatifid. 

 The two species appear to me to be 

 very distinct, though similar." — Eng. 

 Flora, iv. 333. Sadler gives them as 

 distinct, without a comment, but does 

 not appear to me to distinguish them 

 very cleverly by his descriptions, (' De 

 Filicibus Veris,' p. 45). Wahlenberg 

 insists on their distinctness, drawing 

 an elaborate contrast between them, 

 (Fl. Lapp. 980). Lastly, Mr. Wilson 

 remarks, " I have never had the least 

 difiiculty in distinguishing these plants, 

 the first by its ovate, the second by its 

 oblong, pinnae," (Phytol. i. V4). All these are weighty authori- 

 ties ; but, on the other side, I find others equally entitled to 

 respect. Dr. Robert Brown observes, — " These two plants are 

 indeed so nearly related that I find myself unable to construct 

 for them clear specific characters, and therefore, in proposing 

 them here as distinct species, I am, from want of sufiicient 



