and canina,' and in the 2nd vol. (1850), pp. 1-2, a • Notice on Potamogeton fluitans Roth and Ulex Gallii Planch.'

Meanwhile, though these short notes suffice to show the writer's critical acumen, he was already giving proof of the direction in which that acumen was likely to be employed. In 1850 he took a first class in the Classical Tripos, and in 1851 a first class in both the Moral and the Natural Science Tripos. In 1851, however, he found time to publish, in the 3rd vol. of the Botanical Gazette (pp. 15-17), a note On Euphorbia stricta and platyphylla'; and in the same volume (pp. 155-7) appears a Note on Athyrium filix-fæmina var. latifolium,' dated 12th November, 1851, which was reprinted in the Phytologist, vol. iv., pp. 440-2. To this year also belongs his paper On a supposed new species of Rubus' (Rubus imbricatus Hort), which appeared in the Annals and Magazine of Natural History, vol. vii., pp. 374-7; but not until 1853 in the Transactions of the Botanical Society of Edinburgh (vol. iv., pp. 113-116), to which it had been communicated. In the 4th vol. of the Phytologist (1852), pp. 640-1, is a note by him on the Occurrence of Orobancha cærulea Vill. and Aconitum Napellus L. in Monmouthshire,' dated July 21st, 1852, and a Note on the third volume of Mr. H. C. Watson's Cybele Britannica' frankly corrected several blunders that had found their way into that work from his own list of Weston-super-Mare plants. This seems to have been Hort's last botanical publication; but he appears in Topographical Botany as a correspondent of Watson's from no less than 11 vice-counties, viz., North Somerset, East and West Gloucester, Monmouth, Merioneth, Carnarvon, North Lancashire and Westmoreland, Cumberland, Durham, West Suffolk, and Cambridge.

In 1852 he was elected a Fellow of his College; in 1853 he proceeded M.A.; and in 1854 and 1856 respectively he took deacon's and priest's orders. In 1857 he resigned his fellowship of Trinity College on accepting the vicarage of St. Ippolyts and Great Wymondley, Herts. His Cambridge friend and contemporary, the Rev. W. W. Newbould, used always to speak of Hort's abandonment of botany in favour of biblical studies in much the same manner as Watson regretted that Edward Forbes' "attention had been drawn from botany to the more showy studies, in which he became eminent."

With Hort's subsequent career we are not here concerned. He became Divinity Lecturer and Fellow of Emmanuel College in 1872, Hulsean Professor of Divinity in 1878, and Lady Margaret Professor in 1887. He became D.D. of his own University in 1875; published two theological dissertations in 1876, and, jointly with Dr. Westcott, a revised Greek text of the New Testament in 1881. He served on the Revision Committee of the "Authorized Version" of the New Testament, and for these services to scholarship was elected an honorary LL.D. of Trinity College, Dublin, in 1888, and D.C.L. of Durham in 1890.

G. S. BOULGger.

To the British botanist, the most interesting chapter in the second edition of Island Life is doubtless that dealing with our own islands, containing, as it does, the first list yet published, of any extent, of our reputed endemic plant-forms. In the first edition the list comprised but four, while the present includes no less than seventy-five forms claimed as endemic. The list referred to is supplied by Mr. Arthur Bennett, and is supplemented by criticisms by Sir J. Hooker, and sometimes by Mr. J. G. Baker. These detailed criticisms deal chiefly with the relationship which is considered by them to exist between the list-forms and other types; the question as to whether or not the seventy-five forms are endemic being afterwards treated of in a summary, from which we learn that Sir J. Hooker would exclude fifty-five of the seventy-five forms from the endemic list, for "various reasons."

Before proceeding further, I desire to acknowledge fully that it is a far more difficult matter to draw up such a list as Mr. Bennett has presented to us, than it is to criticise it afterwards. Having admitted this much, I do not hesitate to say that I scarcely think that the list, as it stands, can be regarded as satisfactory. It seems to me very desirable that we should possess a well-digested list of our endemic plants, and the following observations on a few of the plants named in Mr. Bennett's list are made with this object in view. Some of the plants remarked upon below are already excluded in Sir J. Hooker's summary, but without sufficient reason being given for the course pursued.

Caltha radicans Forst. From my experience of this and kindred forms, I should feel it very rash to assert that it is endemic. My reasons for taking this view are contained in previous papers, and need not be repeated here.

Brassica monensis Huds.. The form of B. Cheiranthus mentioned by Lloyd (Fl. de l'Ouest, ed. x. p. 24) should be compared with this; until the result of such a comparison is published, one would hardly feel disposed to accept B. monensis as endemic.

Diplotaxis muralis DC. var. Babingtonii.—Both biennial and perennial forms occur in France. Apparently endemic in name only.

Viola lutea Huds. var. amana.-The varieties given by Koch (Syn. ed. ii. p. 94) seem to cover far more than all the British forms. Endemic in name only, apparently.

Cerastium arcticum Lange, var. Edmondstonii.-Although this differs from the type chiefly in its purplish copper-coloured foliage, the character is retained to a very considerable extent in cultivation. It is true that C. alpinum is a very variable plant; it sometimes approaches C. arcticum very closely in habit. But the marked difference in the sculpturing of the seeds, pointed out by JOURNAL OF BOTANY.-VOL. 31. [MARCH, 1893.]

F

H. C. Watson a great many years ago, is not variable, and is easily apparent to anyone who is accustomed to compare the two. Undoubtedly, however, C. arcticum is more nearly allied to C. alpinum than to C. latifolium L.

Anthyllis Vulneraria L., var. ovata.-I am disappointed to learn that this remarkably beautiful plant reverts at once to the type in cultivation; from Mr. J. G. Baker's experiment it would appear that it is merely a state due to situation, and it should accordingly be expunged from our lists.

Trifolium repens L., var. Townsendi.-I should not venture to accept this as endemic until the result has been published of a comparison between it and the plant referred to under T. repens by Boreau (Fl. du Centre, ed. iii., p. 158) as “ T. prostratum Biasol. ?" the description of which applies very well to Townsendi.

Enanthe fluviatilis Colem.-In the opinion of the first Fen botanist of the day this plant is probably distinct. Sir J. Hooker, in his criticism, speaks of it as the "fluitant form of E. Phellandrium," but what this expression is intended to imply is not very clear; it can hardly be intended to mean that it is merely a state due to situation, as in his summary it is called a variety, while in his Students' Flora it ranks as a subspecies!

Chenopodium rubrum L., var. pseudo-botryodes. I thought Watson had shown this to be merely a state due to environment. However, as it is claimed as endemic, it would be interesting to know what state the species assumes on the Continent when growing there in situations similar to those which here produce pseudobotryodes.

Carex involuta Bab.-Accepted as endemic by Hooker, who remarks, however, that it is probably a hybrid between C. vesicaria and C. ampullacea. This hybrid occurs both on the Continent and in Scandinavia.

Hieracium. Mr. Bennett quotes fifteen endemic forms, a number which might be greatly increased. On all of these Sir J. Hooker and Mr. J. G. Baker say:-" No case can be made of these. They are local forms with the shadowiest of shady characters." I confess that the real intent of this criticism seems to me somewhat obscure (some might feel inclined to ask, what is an endemic species but a local form ?); but surely nobody would expect to find in a recently separated island, forms as distinct as those found in anciently separated islands? Were this the case, the phenomena of distribution would indeed present a hopeless puzzle! However, compared with the channel which separates, say, Madagascar from its continent, we are separated from our continent by the "shadowiest of shady" channels, so that our endemic forms of Hieracium are just what they ought to be, although this, the really interesting and important feature in the case, is entirely ignored. In a recent island it is only natural to expect to find most of the endemic forms among the more critical, or in other words, more plastic, groups. We know that the great bulk of our named Hieracia are not merely states due to situation; their characters

have been proved to be permanent by cultivation under varied conditions, all of which are different from their own original habitats. Their kind of variation is therefore specific in its nature, and we will leave it to others who are interested in the point to allot them exactly such rank as seems fit to them. It should be remarked here that a very close study having been given to the Hieracia in Scandinavia, we may with some safety assume that the bulk of the plants now considered to be endemic here will eventually prove to be really so.

While on these points, I take the opportunity of calling attention to the persistent efforts that have for some time past been made to disparage the study of the finely separated species. The raison d'être of these attacks is not expressed in the papers themselves, but it is quite well understood by British botanists. I protest against anyone assuming to write in the "Darwinian sense," as Mr. C. B. Clarke does, and at the same time (or previously) sneering at investigations of the kind referred to. One is not altogether unaccustomed to hear it stated that if there really be such a thing as Evolution, we ought to see it at work around us. It may be pretty safely predicted that those who despise the study of ultra-critical plants will never see it; it must be remembered that in such groups as the Hieracia there are, beyond the named forms, yet others, whose variation is too slight to receive a name, but is at the same time quite perceptible to those who intimately study the group. In such groups, perhaps, if anywhere, we may see Evolution in its active state.

One can easily understand how galling it must be to the mere plant-sorter, to see the increasing study of the more critical groups that is growing up,-in other words, to see how his power is slipping away from him; but it does seem an anomaly that one writing from the Darwinian point of view should fail to see the extreme value of studying those groups in which the forms run closest.

Hieracium auratum Fr.-This should have been included in the American British list. It will not, probably, be contended that it is a local form; in its wide distribution in Scotland (from Shetland southwards), due to the pappus-borne fruit, it forms a notable exception to the rest of the American group.

Besides the plants referred to above, there are various others in Mr. Bennett's list which I should not venture to accept as endemic; as, however, the exclusion of these rests mainly on individual opinion, it is perhaps not worth while to name them at present. There are also some which may be eventually added to the list, but in the present early stage of their history, it would be premature to accord them such rank.

68

SYNOPSIS OF GENERA AND SPECIES OF MALVEE.

BY EDMUND G. BAKER, F.L.S.

(Continued from vol. xxx., p. 332.)

XVII. BASTARDIA H. B. K. Nov. Gen. et Spec. v. p. 254, t. 472.-Bracteolæ 0. Carpella in capsulam loculicide 3-5-valvem connata.

1. B. VISCOSA H. B. K. l. c. p. 256; L'Herit. Stirp. t. 53 bis. B. Guayaquilensis Turcz. in Bull. Soc. Nat. Mosc. 1858, p. 201. Abutilon fætidum Moench, Meth. Supp. p. 206. Sida viscosa L.; DC. Prod. i. p. 467. S. fætida Cav.; DC. Prod. l. c. S. Magdalenæ DC. Prod. l. c. ? S. brevipes DC. Prod. l. c.

Hab. West Indies! Mexico! Guatemala ! Ecuador. Venezuela! New Granada. Peru.

Var. a. Grisebach, Fl. Brit. West Indies, p. 80.
Hab. West Indies.

Var. B. PARVIFOLIA Grisebach, 1. c. Bastardia parvifolia H. B.K. 1. c. p. 255, t. 472. Sida Bastardia DC. Prod. i. p. 467. Hab. Brazil. West Indies. Cuba!

Var. y. FRAGRANS. Sida fragrans L'Herit. Stirp. p. 111, t. 53. -Planta fragrans, folia majore quam typo pedunculis petiolo brevioribus, carpellis 5.

Hab. St. Domingo.

2. B. HIRSUTIFLORA Presl, Reliq. Haenk. ii. p. 112. B. hirsutissima Walp. Rep. i. p. 327. S. hirsutissima Dietr. Synop. iv. p. 850. Hab. Mexico, nr. Acapulco, Haenke! Barclay! Colima, Palmer, No. 1307!

This plant has only three carpels.

3. B. CONFERTA Garcke et K. Schum. in Fl. Brazil, Fasc. cix. p. 362, t. 66.

Hab. Brazil, Glaziou, No. 14516.

4. B. ELEGANS K. Schum. in Fl. Brazil, l. c. p. 363.

Hab. Brazil, Prov. Minas Geraes, Warming, No. 1842. 5. B. BIVALVIS H. B. K. Nov. Gen. et Sp. v. p. 255. B. aristata Turcz. in Bull. Soc. Nat. Mosc. 1858, p. 200. B. spinifex Tr. & Pl. Prod. Nov. Granat. p. 186. Sida bivalvis Cav.; DC. Prod. i. p. 464. S. viscosa MacFad. Fl. Jam., non L.

Hab. Brazil. New Granada! Ecuador! Jamaica !

6. B. BERLANDIERI A. Gray in Proc. Am. Acad. xxii. p. 295. Hab. Mexico, nr. Tantoyuca, Berlandier, Nos. 747, 2167!

Species exclusa.

Bastardia angulata Guill. & Perr. = Abutilon intermedium Hochst. B. crispa St. Hil. Abutilon crispum Sweet.

=

B. nemoralis St. Hil.

= Abutilon crispum Sweet.

Subtribus 4. ABUTILEE.

Carpella simplici serie verticillata.

Ovula 2-0 (rarius 1) sæpius adscendentia, nunc alia pendula alia

adscendentia.