and whose seedlings closely approximate. If they all be variations from one species, there is every probability that in two or three generations (successively cultivated on the solitary system) a general tendency will be manifested to return to one form. When we have satisfied our minds as to their specific distinctness or the contrary, we may try what freaks Nature will play under a regular process of hybridization. The investigation must necessarily be tedious, and the examiner liable to many failures; but this must not discourage us. J. BACKHOUSE, JUN. York, March 10, 1849. List of Plants naturalized near Brechin, Forfarshire, observed in 1848. By WILLIAM ANDERSON, Esq. The following is a list of naturalized plants that flowered, last season, in woods near Brechin Castle, Forfarshire. Meconopsis Cambrica Chelidonium majus Geranium phæum Valeriana pyrenaica Polygonum Bistorta Rumex alpina The above are either escapes or outcasts from the garden. Saponaria officinalis, var. with double flowers, grows by the side of a field a little above the service bridge to Brechin Castle. A cottage stood near the spot upwards of thirty years ago; hence the origin of the plant in this station. Flowered last October. I cannot leave the subject of Brechin-Castle Botany without noticing further on the Tulipa sylvestris. In following up the remark made by me in the Flora of Forfarshire,' I may now add my firm belief that this plant is not indigenous in the station near Brechin Castle, from the circumstance of its being found only near the site of the old garden (and to all appearance where part of the mould has been deposited), and along with it the Tulipa. I am surprised at the silence that has hitherto prevailed regarding this plant (at least in this station), while others perhaps less interest ing (in point of beauty at least) have received much attention. Don and others visited the above station at a time when the circumstance was as evident as it is now. Temstall, Sittingbourne, Kent, W. ANDERSON. Notes on certain British Plants for distribution by the Botanical Society of London, in 1849. By HEWETT C. WATSON, Esq. AGAIN, as in several past years, I have to request that the Editor of the 'Phytologist' will grant the use of his widely-circulated journal, as the best medium for conveying to Members of the Botanical Society of London, some explanations about certain of the specimens which have been lately contributed to the Society, for distribution during the present year. While conveying these explanatory notes on the specimens, I wish to avail myself of the opportunity thus afforded, for mentioning that the present will probably be the last year in which I shall myself in any way intermeddle with the distribution of British specimens from Bedford Street; and even this year I do so to a less extent than usual. I have come to the determination of withdrawing from active interference in future, mainly in consequence of not having found a sufficiently systematic cooperation with my own efforts, fully to ensure the beneficial results which had been anticipated as the fruits of much time and exertion bestowed by myself on the management of the distributions during the past five or six years; partly, also, from finding practical differences of opinion between myself and others, as to the course which is requisite for efficiently continuing the distributions on the large scale to which they have gradually attained by the increase of members, &c. I am desirous of making this statement here, where it may be likely to catch the eyes of members, with the object of thus publicly releasing myself from all individual and personal responsibility in regard to the future management of the Botanical Society of London. This could not be the case while it was known to many of the members, and even publicly avowed by myself (see 'Phytologist,' ii. 1007), that I was really taking an active and extensive participation in most of the matters connected with the Society's distributions of specimens, although nominally not holding any official position in the Society, as a Member of Council or otherwise. So long as that was the case, the contributors would still very justly hold me one among the persons who were responsible to them for the good and efficient management of the Society, in the principal department of its operations. But that responsibilty now ceases. The Botanical Society of London has been gradually brought to a state of great practical efficiency, as a centre and medium for exchanges of specimens among its members. It will require far less exertion of hand and head to keep it on the high level which it has attained, than was required to raise the Society to its present state, from the very low place which it held in public estimation and usefulness some six or eight years ago. Almost all the needful preliminary work of planning and preparing, in both the intellectual and the manual sense, has been completed, and has become converted almost into a matter of routine. So that it would be a very poor compliment, indeed, to the numerous other members, on and off the staff of officebearers in London, were it now to be supposed that the operations of the Society cannot still be carried on steadily, usefully, and successfully, without the watchful intermeddling of a single individual who resolves to withdraw therefrom. At the same time that such a view is expressed, I am very far from confessing a low self-estimate of the consequences of my own past interference. On the contrary, I believe that the Botanical Society of London, in all likelihood, would have been utterly extinct before this date, if that interference had not taken place. True, my own efforts would probably have proved unavailing without the unwearied exertions of my very estimable friend, the Secretary of the Society. But equally so, I think, the latter might have failed without the former. And the cooperation of many was quite as necessary to competent botanists, as contributors, success. My individual responsibility in the distributions of British specimens for the current year, is limited. I have very rapidly looked over the chief part of those sent in by contributors; and in so doing I have removed two lots or portions of them from the rest; namely, first, those which I believed to be mis-labelled though errors of nomenclature; secondly, those which it seemed desirable to send out to the members, although they might not be specially applied for as desiderata. One large parcel, that of Dr. Mateer, I refused to look at, on account of the bad condition of the specimens, in regard to their pressing and drying, although otherwise well selected. As a general rule, the large parcels are found to contain the worst specimens; and yet there is a brilliant exception to this rule, in the parcels from Mr. French, which are both very good and very numerous in their contents. The number of specimens which it is necessary to place in the category of mis-labelled plants, I am happy to say, is yearly decreasing; and the errors are chiefly found in the parcels of recently-admitted members, or of those botanists who contribute without being members of the Society. Moreover, the false labels now usually belong to allied species which have been confused together by authors, or to forms not always recognized as species. For example, it will excite no surprise that specimens of Prunus avium should have been labelled with the name of Prunus Cerasus, and by a good botanist, or that the specific names of the Lastræas should have been crossed and misapplied. In the latter of my two categories, I included such varieties and recently-discovered species as are not yet included in the 'London Catalogue of British Plants,' in or by which the members mark their desiderata; as also, any other plants of doubtful name, or requiring some special explanation. It is for the purpose of giving an explanatory notice respecting some of the specimens belonging to this second lot or selection, that I now seek to address the members of the Botanical Society, through the pages of the 'Phytologist.' I shall myself put up these specimens into packets, as far as their numbers will extend, and mark the several packets 1, 2, 3, &c., in a series up to 50 or 60, according to the fullness of their contents. The distributors in London will determine with whom, of the many contributors in 1848-9, the greater and earlier claims for them may rest. The Anacharis Alsinastrum and recently-distinguished species of Filago will be the only novelties, of which some duplicates will still remain over and above the fifty or sixty packets. Filago canescens (Jord.), F. apiculata (G. E. Sm.), and F. spatulata (Presl.). All three of these having been heretofore included together, under the collective or general name of Filago germanica, I gathered a copious supply of each, in my own neighbourhood, in Surrey, in order that their distinctions should be rendered more clear and satisfactory, through all three being presented to the eye at once, with correct labels. Mr. E. G. Varenne also sent many examples of F. apiculata, collected at Kelvedon, in Essex; and Mr. J. W. Salter added a few others, labelled from Redneck Heath, Thetford, on the authority of Mr. C. C. Babington. To Mr. G. S. Gibson the Society was indebted for a large supply of F. Jussiæi (Coss.), which is syno nymous with the F. spatulata. Among the specimens of F. apiculata (F. lutescens, Jord.) from the various localities, there is a close similarity of general habit. This is less the case with those of F. spatulata. The few of the latter species which I collected in a field of oats near Chessington Church, Surrey, are remarkable for their more upright and more regularly dichotomous growth, with narrower leaves. Others from a wheat-field, near Walton-on-Thames, in the same county, have a very spreading ramification, the branches being often horizontal or even deflexed, and the leaves are in general much broader. The specimens from Mr. Gibson are intermediate between these two forms, and approximate more to F. canescens (the ordinary F. germanica of authors) in their mode of branching. The distinguishing characters of the three apparent species may be found in the 'Phytologist,' iii. 314. Anacharis Alsinastrum (Bab.). Only few specimens of this interesting plant could be distributed in the spring of last year. It was, however, mentioned in my notes (Phytol. ii. 41) under name of Udora verticillata. Since that time it has become familiar to English botanists by name of Anacharis, although many of them may be still in want of specimens; which can now be sent to all members of the Society, from the liberal supply furnished by the Rev. A. Bloxam, collected in the Reservoirs, Foxton Locks, near Market Harborough, Leicestershire. The long and very slender stalk which raises the flower above the surface, while the rest of the plant is wholly in the water, appears so weak or fragile that many of the specimens will be likely to reach their destination with the flowers broken off. Of course the Anacharis could not be introduced into the second edition of the London Catalogue,' which had been just printed when its discovery was announced; and it may therefore be worth while to mention that it will form a third genus under the order of Hydrocharidaceæ. It is probable that few young botanists would unite the Anacharis, Stratiotes, and Hydrocharis into one order, if they undertook to group plants according to general resemblance; yet the exigencies of the so-called Natural System require this; the system being, in fact, arbitrary and conventional in many of its details, although truly founded upon natural similitudes. Thus, even in the hands of that clever systematist, Dr. Lindley, it is more forced and arbitrary in its details, than with most other technical classifiers. Melilotus arvensis (Wallr.). The first announcement of this species, as British, in the 'Phytologist,' iii. 344, was made on the authority of specimens communicated to the Botanical Society of London, by Mr. 3 R VOL. III. |