186 
THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
British species, but probably a cultivated plant, with remarkably 
small flowers on rather long peduncles, of G. nepetoides Jord. 
Linnaeus’s second species, Melissa Nepeta , presents little difficulty, 
and the fresh epithets created by Lamarck and Moencli must be 
passed over in favour of G. Nepeta Savi, FI. Pis. ii. 63 (1798), 
where the Linnean trivial was first restored. This species is repre¬ 
sented in the Linnean Herbarium by G. nepetoides Jord. 
The third and commonest British species—the Thymus Gala- 
mintha of Smith’s English Botany, no. 1676—has been the most 
generally confused. Although known to Morrison it was not distin¬ 
guished by Linnaeus, for it is generally agreed that it is not, or at 
most only in part, his Melissa Galamintha. It was apparently first 
separated in post-Linnean times by Host (FI. Austr. ii. 129 (1831)) as 
G. officinalis , which is invalidated by Moench’s earlier name. And 
if C. officinalis Moench and C. menthcefolia are ignored as suggested 
above, it remains to adopt Jordan’s C. ascendens (Obs. Pl. liar. iv. 
8, t. 1. f. B (1846)), where the plant is described at length and well 
figured. The identity of this species with the common British plant 
is readily seen from Jordan’s account, and is abundantly confirmed 
by a comparison with the ample authentic material at Kew and South 
Kensington. 
The three recognised British Calaminthas will therefore be treated 
as G. sylvatica Bromfield, C. Nepeta Savi, and G. ascendens Jordan. 
I first collected the new Calamint, to which attention is now 
drawn, in September 1900, when I saw it growing in some abundance 
in a perfectly wild situation near Swanage, Dorset. It gave me the 
impression of a large-flowered G. Nepeta —a species with which I was 
not then very familiar,—but I determined at the time that it was 
%J 7 
not identical with that plant or G. ascendens , and it remained un¬ 
named. In 1912 I made a second excursion to its habitat and 
gathered a series of specimens for examination ; and in 1918 I had 
roots of it sent home for cultivation. It has now flowered in my garden 
with the three known British species for four successive summers. 
In addition to this Dorset material I possess an imperfect specimen, 
collected in 1900 by my old friend Mr. C. B. P. Andrews in Guernsey 
as G. ascendens var. Briggsii, which appears to be conspeciflc. 
Quite recently I have taken the plant in hand for identification, 
and have found, somewhat unexpectedly, that I had discovered a 
Calamint well known in Spain and Portugal, described by Boissier 
and Beuter (Pugillus PI. Nov. 92 (1852)) as C. bcetica. My Dorset 
specimens agree with the original description, and match the exsiccata 
at Kew and Herb. Mus. Brit., which include authentic material 
received from Boissier, except that their leaf-cutting is a little more 
pronounced, probably owing to our milder and moister climate. It is 
possible that on this ground they may be varietally separated, but 
this is certainly undesirable without a full knowledge of the living 
Spanish type. 
G. beetica is maintained as a distinct species by Willkomm and 
Lange (FI. Hisp. ii. 413 (1870)), and appears to have about as 
good a claim to that rank as the other British and foreign forms 
similarly recognised. In Briquet’s Labiees des Alpes-Maritimes, 
