clogy and Natural History. 325 



18, New I '>' Phenacite f by \V. s. Yeates (commu- 



nicated). — Among a number <>f mineral specimens oolleoted by 

 me, lust June, at the mioa mines of Amelia C. EL, \ r :i., I have 

 identified crystals o( phenacite and topaz, the latter being altered 



in some instances, to the variety ol museovite known as damour- 

 ite. I have one (piite large pseudomorph of the damourite after 

 topaz. The phenacite is Badly cracked, and not, so far as I have 

 Been, in good specimens. I also found galena associated with the 

 albite. The occurrence o^ these minerals at this locality has not, 

 I believe, been before announced. 



I have also received from Mr. Loren B. Merrill, of Paris, Me., 

 for identification, a flat crystal of phenacite from Hebron, Maine. 

 It has a maximum diameter of 14"' m and is a combination of the 

 planes, O, i-2, r§-2, /H-J and a rhonibohedron of the first order, 

 too small to allow of measurement of its angles. The first men- 

 tioned plane i< new to the species and a fuller description of the 

 crystal will be published later. 



14. Hybrids in the genus Ranunculus, — It is well known that 

 certain genera in the Order Kanunculacea? contain doubtful nat- 

 ural hybrids, while in a few genera of the Order, this tendency to 

 hybridize has been utilized for the production of some of the most 

 attractive plants in general cultivation. Freyn has lately given, 

 in the Botanisches Centralblatt, (1890, 1-6), an interesting ac- 

 count of certain species of Ranunculus, in which, after referring 

 to the investigations of others, he describes a few possible hybrids. 

 Ranunculus lacerus, Rellardi, has been regarded as the offspring 

 of R. aconitifolius and R. Pyrenceus, or more probably, of the 

 former with R. plantagineus. But from his researches Freyn con- 

 cludes that this is not a true hybrid : it is more probably a 

 vigorous form of R. plantagineus. 



The supposed cross between the two species R. arvensis and 

 R. bulbosus is reduced by him to a variety of R. bulbosus with 

 much divided leaves, the divisions however, falling within the 

 range of form found in R. bulbosus. 



In the same way, the author reduces the so-called hybrid of R. 

 bulbosus and montanus, in Heer's Herbarium, to R. mixtus. He 

 says that he cannot consider it a hybrid, much less a hybrid in 

 which R. bulbosus has had any share. 



Certain forms have been described as resulting from the cross- 

 ing of R. bulbosus and R. nemorosus. All of the supposed 

 hybrids are brought by the author down to varieties ol the 

 species named, or to R. moutanus, but he recognizes no true hy- 

 brids in any of the forms. 



The supposed hybrid between R. bulbosus and R. polyant/temos 

 fares a little better. One from the northern limit of R. bulbosus, 

 was described by Schmalhausen (in which the parents as given 

 above are reversed in order) and this is thought to be a hybrid, 

 but a second, described by Lasch, is thrown out. 



The plant which has been described as a hybrid of R. bulbosus 

 and R. repens, is regarded as a form of R. Philonotis Ehrh., a 

 synonym of R. ISardous Cz. 



