aspera Willd. Cauldshields Loch and Long Moss, 79.--C. polyacantha A. Braun. Long Moss, 79.--C. contraria Kuetz. Abundant on the south side of Rescobie Loch, 90. It is likely to be already recorded from this station.--C. vulgaris L. A small and very dense form, growing on mud, was met with on the border of Long Moss, 79. Mr. Bennett says that it resembles the form called montana by Braun.

SOME BRITISH SPECIES OF ENANTHE.

BY ARTHUR BENNETT, F.L.S.

,,

PROBABLY few of the botanists now studying our British Flora are aware of the difficulty there was some years ago in elucidating the three species of this genus standing in the 8th ed. of the London Catalogue as E. pimpinelloides L., E. peucedanifolia "Poll.,' and E. Lachenalii Gmel. From the publication of the 1st ed. of Babington's Manual (1843) wrong naming prevailed, and it was only by the united efforts of Mr. Ball,* Prof. Babington,† and Mr. H. C. Watson that anything like a fair knowledge of them was obtained. Mr. E. Lees's § paper contained, with some additional information, so many mistakes, that it can hardly be placed in the same category with the others, although he had really better means of arriving at the truth, having gathered all three.

It may be of some interest to take a retrospective glance at the naming of these plants. In 1842 Prof. Babington has two species only (though doubts are expressed), (E. Lachenalii and E. peucedanifolia (Poll.). See also remarks on, and a full description of, E. pimpinelloides L. in Bromfield's Flora Vectensis, pp. 205, 7. In the 2nd ed. (1847) of the Manual we have E. pimpinelloides L., (E. Lachenalii Gmel., and E. peucedanifolia Poll. The doubt existing as to the name of the latter was expressed by Mr. Watson, who suggested (Phytol. ii. 14) the name of (E. Smithii, if it were proved that the plant named peucedanifolia by English authors was neither the plant of Pollich nor the E. silaifolia of Bieberstein. In the 3rd ed. of the Manual (1851) a change is made to E. silaifolia Bieb. ?, with the remark, "Scarcely E. silaifolia (Bieb.), not (E. peucedanifolia (Poll.)," and in the 4th edition this is repeated. In 1858 appeared the 1st edition of Bentham's Handbook: in this, one species (E. pimpinelloides L.) is made of the three, with two varieties; followed by the remark, "These differences have been shown to depend on soil and situation; at the same time, rather more constant differences have been pointed out in the fruiting umbels, although even here intermediate states show that the two following [E. pimpinelloides Brit. Fl. and E. Lachenalii Brit. Fl.'] should

London Journ. Bot. iii. 71 (1844); Phytologist, i. 1083 (1844); ii. 11, 390; iii. 405. 8 l. c. ii. 354.

be considered rather as marked varieties than as true species." Mr. Watson's remark (Compend. Cyb. Brit. 78) seems the fittest comment on this passage:"The comprehensive knowledge of the general botanist is not sufficiently precise; the precise knowledge of the local botanist is not sufficiently comprehensive."

In the 8th ed. of Hooker & Arnott's British Flora (1860) we have E. pimpinelloides L., E. Lachenalii Gmel., and E. silaifolia Bieb., the last with the synonym "E. peucedanifolia Sibth. (non Poll.)." In Babington's Manual, 8th ed. (1881), the last plant stands as (E. silaifolia Bieb. ?"; in Hooker's Student's Flora, ed. 3 (1884), it is styled E. peucedanifolia (Poll.).

Nyman (Sylloge, 1854, p. 155) gives our English plant under E. peucedanifolia Poll."; and in his Conspectus, p. 298 (1879), he places the English and Irish plant under the same name.

The object of this note is to put on record the opinions of two excellent botanists on this particular plant, as represented by the series sent them consisting of examples grown in my garden from Surrey roots; showing the plant from the seed-leaves to the perfectly ripe fruit, and the decayed winter state.

Maximowicz wrote on April 7, 1889:-"I have examined your E. silaifolia, and could not find any stable differences from the continental plant, of which we have lots of specimens from very different European countries. Generally the continental plant has shorter and a little broader leaflets, but some garden specimens from Germany have as long and narrow ones as your British plant. All the rest is identical, however, the fruit excepted, which I never saw so broad and with such broad prominent ribs as yours have. But in breadth and length the parts do vary a good deal, but the ribs remaining always narrower, as in your plant."

Dr. R. Schumann, of the Berlin Herbarium, wrote on March 10th last-Regarding the umbelliferous plant, I completely agree with your determination; after having carefully examined it, I can find no difference from Enanthe silaifolia M. B., of which we have a type communicated us by Steven."

As regards the three plants as at present named by our botanists, I find that they are rarely now mixed (by names) one with the other. As to their differences, I have had all three growing for many years. At the time I write (March 11th), silaifolia has abundance of radical leaves, while pimpinelloides has made no sign of appearing, and does not usually do so until the end of the month. Lachenalii I lost when moving to my present home, but I think its radical leaves appeared about the same time as silaifolia, or perhaps a little later. Between silaifolia and pimpinelloides there is abundance of difference; in the first, the radical leaves, on first appearing, grow strictly upright from the ground, only inclining as they grow older; in pimpinelloides, they begin, directly they have pushed through the ground, to spread by a very peculiar gyrate growth, the apex of the leaves representing the spokes of a wheel, with the leaf-segments very close together, and pressed close to the ground. They only resemble the detached leaf in English Botany, t. 594 (ed. 3), after some weeks.

The first radical leaves of either silaifolia or pimpinelloides are not shown on the E. B. plate. E. silaifolia will be in flower sometimes by May 20th to June 20th. E. pimpinelloides in cultivation I have never seen earlier than July 10th. Lachenalii I have not seen in flower before July, but in the Flora of Dorset, "June to October" is given. I hope to sow seeds of all three at one time, and note their differences in the first year's growth.

I ought to add that Grenier (in a letter to Dr. Boswell in 1853) refers our plant to E. peucedanifolia Poll. On this I may perhaps add my own opinion. In the Kew Herbarium there is a specimen from Schultz, which seems to me to exactly agree with the peucedanifolia of Pollich, and comparing ours with this I cannot make it agree, but would name our plant silaifolia M. Bieberstein, Fl. Taur. Cauc. iii. p. 232 (1819).

Finally, I do not believe that any botanist could grow these three plants for several years, carefully watching them at all stages, and regard them as one species, even from a Linnean standpoint.

NOTES ON THE FLORA OF COUNTY ARMAGH.

BY R. LLOYD PRAEGER, B.E., M.R.I.A.

ARMAGH is a rather small county, with an area of 512 square miles, lying in the north-eastern portion of Ireland. With the exception of its south-eastern corner, where it borders the narrow estuary of the Newry river for a few miles, it is entirely an inland area. Its northern boundary is the southern shore of Lough Neagh, the largest sheet of inland water in the British Islands, and long known as the home of several interesting and extremely rare plants. Armagh forms the most easterly part of the tenth botanical district of Cybele Hibernica, which also includes the counties of Tyrone, Fermanagh, Monaghan, and Cavan.

There is a variety of geological formations in Armagh, and these have a due effect in their respective areas, both on the physical features and on the flora. In the north, stretching along the Lough Neagh shores, there is a thick deposit of lacustrine clays of Older Tertiary age; this low-lying area is now covered with extensive peat-bogs. South of this, to the eastward, a tongue of Tertiary basalts protrudes into the county from the basaltic plateau of the north-east, while westward is a corresponding tongue of Carboniferous limestone, the north-eastern extremity of the great central limestone plain of Ireland, bringing with it a number of limestone-loving species. Rocks of Lower Silurian age hold sway over the centre and south-west of the county; here, as on the limestone and basaltic areas, the surface is generally undulating, fertile, and well tilled. In the south-east lies a mass of ancient granites, basalts, and porphyries, which rise in rugged, barren,

*This early spring it is flowering on May 11th.

heath-clad hills, with flat stretches of poor land between; the highest of these hills is Slieve Gullion (1893 ft.), famous in Irish romance as the scene of marvellous adventures, and as the home of dread magicians and of frightful monsters.

The flora of County Armagh had not in past years received a large amount of attention from local botanists, and, though a number of records of rare plants existed, they were the result of desultory rather than of systematic search. It appeared, therefore, especially in view of the approaching publication of a new edition of Cybele Hibernica, that a botanical survey of the county was desirable, and with this object I devoted a three-weeks' holiday last season to a rapid investigation of its phanerogamic flora. For the full list of plants obtained, and their stations, the reader is referred to the pages of the Irish Naturalist (January-August, 1893); in the present notes I wish merely to indicate the more interesting features of the flora, to point out the effect of varying petrological conditions, and to briefly compare the Armagh flora with that of adjoining

areas.

The total number of plants found in the county, omitting those whose claim to be considered native is more than doubtful, is 616. There is a poverty of maritime and montane species; the former is of course to be expected; as regards the latter, the scantiness of the upland and alpine flora is remarkable, considering the elevation of the southern hills. Out of forty-seven Irish plants of Highland type, only four occur in Armagh, and none of them are confined to alpine situations. Galium boreale inhabits only the shores of Lough Neagh (50 ft. elevation); Vaccinium Vitis-idea is recorded from the northern bogs (50-100 ft.), and grows also on the summit of Slieve Gullion (1893 ft.); Selaginella spinosa ranges from 700 ft. upwards; and Isoetes lacustris in lakes from 200 to 444 ft. Not a single Hawkweed (excepting of course the ubiquitous H. Pilosella) was found in the county, although at least fourteen species inhabit the adjoining granite hills of Mourne. Of Mr. Watson's Atlantic type, Co. Armagh possesses only five out of forty-one Irish speciesSedum anglicum, Cotyledon Umbilicus, Pinguicula lusitanica, Lastrea amula, Hymenophyllum tunbridgense. Out of eighteen Irish Germanic plants, one only, Orchis pyramidalis, grows in the county.

Armagh may conveniently be divided into five botanical regions, defined by physical or geological conditions, and characterised by the presence or absence of certain plants:-(1) Lough Neagh and connecting waters: includes the shores of Lough Neagh, and the banks of the Bann, Newry Canal, Blackwater, and Ulster Canal. Cicuta, Enanthe fistulosa, Butomus, and Sagittaria are abundant throughout these waters, all of which are in direct communication with Lough Neagh, and, with the exception of a single station for Cicuta, none of the species mentioned are found in any other lakes or rivers in the county. (2) Northern bogs: embraces the extensive bogs which cover the flat district lying along the southern margin of Lough Neagh. Confined to this region, and occurring in some abundance therein, are Drosera anglica, D. intermedia, Vaccinium Oxycoccos, Rhynchospora alba, Osmunda regalis; Ulex Gallii is con

spicuously absent. (3) Limestone region: embraces the Carboniferous limestone area in the N.W., and the adjoining patch of New Red Sandstone, which yields a similar flora. Carduus acanthoides, Veronica Anagallis, Lamium album, Orchis pyramidalis, Juncus glaucus, Briza media, are characteristic of this district, most of them being abundant here, and all of them very rare in, or absent from, the rest of the county. (4) Silurian region: extends over the whole central and S.W. portions of the county; surface undulating and well tilled; flora generally uninteresting, but it was here that Carex rhynchophysa was obtained. Lepidium Smithii, unknown further north, is common on this area; Linaria vulgaris becomes much more frequent; Ulex Gallii haunts the higher grounds; Veronica Anagallis and poppies are conspicuously absent; and the flora generally is the same as that of central Co. Down. (5) Hill region : includes the granite and basalt hills of the S.E. Though an elevation of nearly 1900 ft. is reached, alpine plants are almost absent. Compared with the northern bog district, we find Ulex europaus replaced here by U. Gallii, and Myosotis palustris by M. repens; the higher cultivated ground is full of Raphanus Raphanistrum, Lotus major, and Chrysanthemum segetum, which are somewhat rare further north; Viola tricolor, Teucrium Scorodonia, Jasione montana, Lepidium Smithii, are also characteristic plants.

The shores of the estuary of the Newry River, in the extreme S.E., yield, of course, a group of maritime species not found elsewhere in the county; among these are Statice bahusiensis, Beta, Obione, Scirpus Savii, Lepturus. The characteristic plants of the basaltic escarpments of Antrim and Derry are not found on the extension of this formation in N.E. Armagh, since these are in general hill plants, and the surface of the basalt in Armagh is low and fertile.

An interesting point in the flora of Armagh is the occurrence throughout the county of several species widely distributed through the centre and south of Ireland, but of extreme rarity in the northeast and north-west (districts 11 and 12); such are Hypericum dubium, Thrincia hirta, Festuca rigida. Two more, Ranunculus circinatus and Orchis pyramidalis, with a more limited distribution in Armagh, are also characteristic plants of the centre and south of Ireland, and rare in, or absent from, the north.

As regards the rarer plants of the county, I have already laid before the readers of this Journal (1892, p. 272; 1893, p. 33) some account of the two most interesting plants obtained, namely, Spiranthes Romanzoffiana and Carex rhynchophysa; respecting which I have nothing to add to my former remarks, except that I gathered the latter again this season; it appears to grow very sparingly in its only station, and is therefore likely to remain a desideratum of many British herbaria, unless discovered in other localities.

Another interesting addition to the flora of Armagh is Calamagrostis Hookeri Syme, the Deyeuxia neglecta var. b. of London Catalogue. This grass is in Britain restricted to the shores and islands of Lough Neagh; in a future paper I hope to deal with the distribution of this and other Lough Neagh plants in detail; suffice