REPORT FOR 1 895. 
467 
fresh specimens, he finds no constancy in either the size of the flowers, 
size and shape of the fruit, or the cutting of the leaves, etc. ; for this 
reason, as mentioned in the ‘Report’ for 1893, he reduces Guerangerii 
to a form.”— W. H. B. 
C. palustris, L. var. procumbens, Beck. Marshy ground. Loch 
Insh, near Aviemore, v.c. 96, 15th June, 1894. Mr. G. C. Druce 
remarks : — “ Certainly an intermediate C. palustris and C. radica?is 
but not so near the latter plant as some forms I saw in Glen More. 
As I have stated, I do not think C. radicans is specifically distinct 
from C. palustris^ and I am not certain how radicu 7 is can be separated 
from \a.x.procuf/ibensP — -A. Somerville. “In the ‘Scottish Naturalist,’ 
1888, p. 210, I gave my reasons, founded on experiment, for con- 
sidering that the only constant distinction between C. palustris and 
C. radicans is to be found in the rooting stem of the latter plant, all 
the other characters being common to both plants. The most natural 
arrangement accordingly appears to me to be the following : — 
Caltha palustris, L. 
Subsp. I. C. vulgaris (sensu lat.) 
varr, ad lib. 
,, II. C. radicans (sensu lat.) 
varr. ad lib. 
This is practically the arrangement adopted by Dr. Huth in his 
‘Monographie ’ (1891), where C. palustris is divided into two main 
sections, characterised respectively by the rooting and non-rooting 
stem. But Dr. Huth letters his varieties continuously through these 
two sections, so that, when reduced to catalogue form, his primary 
sub-division entirely disappears, which I think a disadvantage. 
Forster’s original plant is simply a very rare form of the sub-species ii., 
just as the form of sub-species i. with similar leaves is extremely rare. 
To continue to make the leaf-form a specific or sub-specific character is 
most artificial, and Watson well remarked of Forster’s plant (‘Cybele,’ 
vol. i., p. 92) that it may be retained as a book species “ in compli- 
ment to its author,” but that it is no species in nature. I should not 
hesitate, therefore, to call Mr. Somerville’s plants one, or rather several, 
of the numerous forms of C. radicans. The var. procumbejis, Beck, 
was published in Dr. Huth’s ‘ Monograph,’ and the leaves, which are 
not figured, are described as “ cordate-reniform, crenate or subentire.” 
I scarcely think, therefore, that any of Mr. Somerville’s plants can be 
exactly this variety, if the description is accurate ; one of them has 
rather coarsely dentate leaves ; in all the leaves are either longer than 
broad, or about equally long and broad, the latter of course coming 
nearest to the description. I cannot bring myself to think that Dr. 
Huth would have used the term ‘cordate-reniform’ except to de.scribe 
a leaf which was appreciably broader than long, and I think that, 
speaking generally, the leaves of Mr. Somerville’s plants should be 
described as cordate-orbicular. The above remarks, so far as they 
specially refer to the plants under consideration, are made on the 
supposition that they belong to the rooting sub-species. This appears 
to me probable ; but as persistently non-rooting prostrate forms do 
