152 
was well known (particularly in Devonshire) as a botanist. 
Botany indeed was the only pursuit in which he was con- 
spicuous.” The same writer also remarks on the habitat 
of the plant. ‘‘ On high grounds above Shute Common, 
between Axminster and Honiton. Mr. Newbery.” There 
is a beautiful full length figure of the fiower in Curtis’s FI. 
Londinensis, vol. 2, 183. Lord Webb Seymour, who sent 
it to Curtis in 1796, says it grows in a poor gravelly soil on 
the slope of a heath, called Kilmington hill, from the parish 
in which it is situated, and about two miles from Axminster. 
It is there confined to one spot not exceeding half an acre, 
close to the road, and about fifty yards on the right hand 
side in going from Axminster to Honiton. He could not 
find it anywhere else after a careful search. 
The earlier and more correct editions of Withering (editions 
2 and 3, a.d. 1787 and 1796) give that station, and on the 
same authority. Smith (FI. Britt) gives Kilmington hill 
(on the authority of Curtis’s FI. Londin) two miles from 
Axminster close to the road. Smith adds in his later books, 
‘‘ Hear Ottery St. Mary. Miss Burgess.” Dr. Beeke, in 
his botanist’s Guide, tells us that “Kilmington hill and 
Shute Common are the same place, and that the plant is 
confined to a spot of ground about 200 yards in length.” 
The above is all the information afforded. Mr. Eavenshaw, 
late Curate of Ilfracombe, who has recently published a 
“Hew List of the Flowering Plants and Ferns growing 
wild in the county of Devon,” has fallen into the mistake 
of separating Shute Common from Kilmington hill, and has 
added two other localities, Seaton and Woodbury Common. 
With respect to Seaton it is too near home for the fiower 
to have escaped observation, if it had been growing there. 
As to Woodbury Common, it seems that Mr. Eavenshaw 
drew his information from the Supplement to the Hew 
Botanist’s Guide, in which the mistake was first made. 
In that work, Mr. Abraham of Heavitree, near Exeter, is 
quoted as the authority for that station, who, upon inquiry, 
has kindly communicated in reply that this is “ an erroneous 
statement.” It may be remarked with reference to the 
fiower being found growing at Ottery St. Mary, that this 
was not correct. Miss Burgess of Ottery, was on a visit at 
