—17— 



' a Osmunda foliis hniatis ramosa, Tourn. Inst. 547/ " 

 As the synonyms show, the monstrous form of B. Luna- 

 ria is here meant (Lunaria raccmosa ramosa major Bauh. 

 Pin. 355). 



In further confirmation of the identity of Osmund a 

 ramosa and Osmunda Lunaria, Hoffman, in " Deutsch- 

 lands Flora." 1795. cites Bolton's figure in " Filices Brit- 

 annicae " (t. 21), that being good B. Lunaria. O. ramosa 

 and Lunaria appear as synonyms also in " Flora Danica " 

 (t. 18), where it is well figured. 



But it is needless to pursue this enquiry any further. 

 The evidence is by no means exhausted, but enough has 

 been brought forward to show that Ascherson's B. ramo- 

 sum does not equal Roth's O. ramosa, and that it cannot 

 therefore displace Braun'' s B. matricariccfolium , estab- 

 lished by Braun in Doell's " Rheinische Flora." p. 24. 

 1843. ^ e ma y then continue to write BotrycJiium matri- 

 cariccfolium A. Braun, with perfect fealty to the princi- 

 ples of the Vienna Congress. 



Finally, the following genesis of the species, with an 

 explanation of the figures, is appended for convenient 

 reference : 



In tracing the early history of B. matricariccfolium , we 

 find it to be pre-Linnsean, going back to 1677. when it 

 was described and figured by Jacob Breyn in his " Plan- 

 tar Icones Centurige Prima?." 



Tablet 93, in the same work, gives an admirable figure 

 of B. Lunaria, v. iucisum, as I have before attested, but 

 I mention it again here to show that Breyn recognized 

 the distinctiveness of the two plants and kept them apart. 



In 1755, Linnaeus placed Breyn's "Lunaria laccmosa 

 minor matricariccfolio " under his Osmunda Lunaria, in 

 " Flora Sueciccae," Ed. ii., where it appears as a variety, 

 but without any more definite designation than that of 

 Breyn's. 



It should be observed here that Roth did not at any 

 time cite this plant for his O. ramosa, while on the other 

 hand he did cite the "Lunaria raccmosa ramosa major" 



