of the Subsection Nobiles . 209 
as in that of Daut6, whilst Statice frutescens alone occurs on El Freyle. 
But here the question arisen, are the two supposed species really distinct, 
or have we in them simply arborescent and subacaulescent forms or 
individuals of one species ; or, finally, is Dr. Perez right in assuming 
that Statice arbor ea was a hybrid of Statice frutescens with Statice 
macrophylla ? Boissier 1 supported his view that they were distinct 
species by pointing out the differences in stature, in the size of the 
leaves, the length of the flowering branches, and other less obvious 
characters, such as the width of the wings of the branches, the shape 
of the auricles of the spike-bearing branchlets, the presence or absence 
of cilia on the uppermost (inner) bract, and the width of its keel. I may 
state at once that these less obvious differences do not hold good. They 
are slight, and differences of the same degree may be found in one and 
the same individual plant. On the other hand, it must be admitted 
that the herbarium specimens can readily be sorted by the dimensions 
of their leaves and inflorescences into two sets, one corresponding to 
Statice arborea as represented by Webb’s and Bourgeau’s specimens 
from the Burgado cliffs, and the other to Statice frutescens as represented 
by Bourgeau’s specimens from El Freyle. There are only few cases where 
one might hesitate. As to stature, the herbarium material, as it is, tells us 
nothing. Now Broussonet, who is supposed to have collected both species 
in the same place, mounted both forms on the same sheet in his own 
herbarium, there being three branches — one with large leaves, and two with 
small leaves like those of the specimen which he gave to Willdenow — - 
but to him they were no doubt all Statice 1 arboreal In a similar way 
Perraudiere himself put the plant collected by him on the Burgado cliffs 
down as ‘ Statice arborescensl and it was only Bourgeau, the distributor, who, 
from the similarity of the branches cut by Perraudiere and his own from 
El Freyle, referred them to ‘ Statice fruticansl implying that they had been 
taken from a subacaulescent plant. It seems clear that neither Broussonet 
nor those who collected on the Burgado cliffs were ever struck by the 
presence of two distinct species, such as Boissier suggested. There would, 
of course, be taller and shorter individuals, and, in the same individual, 
perhaps robust and weak branches ; and it would depend on chance or the 
idiosyncrasy or object of the collector whether he would cut his specimens 
from one or the other set of individuals or branches. In fact, there is at 
present growing in the Temperate House at Kew a fine specimen of Statice 
arborea macrophylla , communicated by Dr. Perez, from which specimens 
representing either form might be obtained. It, however, also seems to be 
the case that on El Freyle only a subacaulescent small-leaved form occurs. 
It has been in cultivation in Europe and in Dr. Perez’s garden without chang- 
1 Boissier, 1 . c., p. 637. 
P 
