Ms 



Ranunculus Lacustris. 



Art. XVIII. Note respecting the Ranunculus lacustris. By 

 Lewis C. Beck and James G. Tracy. (With a Plate.) 



One of the first papers read before the Albany Lyceum, now a 

 branch of the Institute, was a description of a new species of 

 Ranunculus, and for which the above name was proposed. This 

 description, together with the reasons which led us to the conclu- 

 sion that this plant had either been overlooked by botanists, or 

 been confounded with some other species, was published at length 

 in the second volume of the New-York Medical and Physical Jour- 

 nal. The facts which we shall hereafter state, will we trust be 

 a sufficient excuse for a few additional remarks upon this subject. 



The plant which we described under the name of R. lacustris, 

 had been previously, though incorrectly, described by Dr. Bige- 

 low as R. fluviatilis ; (Flor. Bost. 1st edit p. 139 j from which 

 last species it was clearly proved by us to be wholly distinct. We 

 further stated, that though it might be the R. multifidus of Pursh, 

 that name had previously been given to an Egyptian plant by For- 

 skall, from which also our plant was found to diner. (See Dr. 

 S?nitk in Rees> Cyclopcedia, article Ranunculus.) In the mean 

 time however, De Candolle, now at the head of European Bot- 

 anists, changed the name of Forskall's R. multifidus to R. For- 

 skcehlii, and left to Pursh's plant the name of R. multifidus. For 

 what reason this changa was made, does not appear ; but it is 

 evident that it was by no means in accordance with the common 

 usages of naturalists. Following in this track of De Candolle, 

 Dr. Bigelow, in the second edition of his Florula Bostoniensis, 

 describes our plant as the R. multifidus of Pursh, acknowledging 

 that he had previously mistaken it for R. fluviatilis. 



Such were the opinions concerning this plant until the publica- 

 tion by Dr. Richardson, of his Botanical Appendix to the narra- 

 tive of Capt. Franklin's first journey, when our R. lacustris, or a 

 mere variety of it, received the name of R. Purshii. And finally, 

 this view is also taken by Dr. Hooker, in his splendid Flora of 

 British America, who gives a figure of one state of the plant, not 

 however the most common. 



It appears therefore that our ideas of this plant have been con- 

 firmed by the authorities just cited. That they are not by De 

 Candolle and Dr. Bigelow, arises from rather an unwarrantable 



