BRITISH HIERACU. 39 



anglimm, but differs in having a more elongated stem, corymbose at 

 the top with 3 or 4 heads, few small root-leaves, and 1 or 2 vert/ 

 large remote ovate-lanceolate acuminate sessile stem-lemes, not at all 

 clasping. It closely resembles the contiaental H. vogesiacum in 

 some respects, and may ultimately prove to be distinct from 5! cerin- 

 thoides. The specimens I have seen vere from near Cushendall, 

 sent to my Mend C. C. Babington, by David Moore, of Glasnevin 

 Botanical Gardens, Dublin. 



Prof. Grenier regards our " H. eerinthoides var. acuiifolium" as 

 identical with the typical S. vogesiacum of Fries, &c. and refers our 

 " typical S. eerinthoides" to the var. procerum of H. vogesiacum. 

 After carefully examining the characters of the latter species given 

 in Tries, Symb. and in the Flore de Prance ; and comparing our 

 plant with dried specimens of H. vogesiacum from Jura, &c. (sent to 

 me by Prof. Grenier) I am unable to satisfy myself that the British 

 plant has more alliance with that species than with IT. cerinthndes, 

 though undoubtedly very near to both ; nor can I indeed convince 

 myself that the continental " S. vogesiacum " is clearly distinguish- 

 able as a species from S". eerinthoides ; the dissimilarity between the 

 two, being decidedly less than between extreme forms of the British 

 plant. 



The figure of S. eerinthoides in Sowerby's English Botany differs 

 so conspicuously from all the native forms of this plant with which 

 I am acquainted, and so exactly resembles the Pyrenaean plant, 

 (which has a more leafy stem, more entire and glaucous ciliated 

 leaves nearly glabrous above, and yellow (?) styles, that I believe it 

 to have been taken from a garden specimen not of British origin. 

 Should this Pyreneean plant ultimately prove distinct from our 

 British one (as I suspect it will), the name of S. eerinthoides as 

 denoting the British species must probably give way. But not 

 being weU. acquainted with the range of form which the Pyrensean 

 plant exhibits, and as Pries regards our British plant as identical 

 with his H. eerinthoides, I am unwilling without further evidence 

 to deviate from the course now adopted. 



