290 MR. A. BENNETT ON CENANTHE PIMPINELLOIDES, LINN. 
III. 
CENANTHE PIMPINELLOIDES , LINN. 
By Arthur Bennett, F.L.S. 
Read 27 th September , 1910. 
In his Flora of Norfolk, and his Supplement, the Rev. K. 
Trimmer gives fourteen stations for the above species. 
I have never seen a Norfolk specimen, and doubt its occur- 
rence in the county. Certainly in the majority of the 
stations given will be CEnanthe Lachenalii, Gmel. 
Yet it may be said the author gives both as Norfolk plants, 
but it will be noted that he restricts the latter to “ salt 
marshes.” This is by no means the case. We have it in 
Surrey on an inland common, and it occurs in very many 
other inland stations. I possess pimpinelloides (the true 
plant) from seven counties, and it is recorded on safe authority 
for four others. 
In Suffolk Dr. Hind reports CE. pimpinelloides from five 
stations, and under CE. silaifolia, Bieb., gives one station, 
saying, “ this latter pimpinelloides is most likely the plant 
in question.” On the contrary there is a specimen of silaifolia 
from that very station in the British Museum Herbarium, 
gathered in 1774 by Sir J. Cullum. In the copy of Trimmer’s 
Flora that belonged to the late Rev. W. W. Newbould he 
has written under pimpinelloides , ‘‘Is this the true plant? 
I suspect that CE. Lachenalii will be found in most of the 
stations, but that silaifolia may also occur.” 
In former years the species of the genus were much con- 
fused in Britain, and it was not until the united labours of 
Messrs. Babington, Bell, and Watson that the muddle was 
set right. In the ‘Journal of Botany’ (1893), pp. 236-8, 
I showed by sending specimens to Berlin and St. Petersburg 
of silaifolia to be compared with Bieberstein’s types, that 
