Page images
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Or all the Plates may be placed together at the end of the volume.

The Supplements ('The Subsection Eu-canina of the Genus
Rosa' and 'Biographical Index of British and Irish Botanists')
should be placed separately at the end of the volume.

[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small]

THE

JOURNAL OF BOTANY

BRITISH AND FOREIGN.

NOTES ON LIMONIUM.*

BY C. E. SALMON, F.L.S.

VII. LIMONIUM DUBYI O. Kuntze.

(PLATE 488.)

THE first reference to this remarkably local plant appears to be in De Candolle's Botanicon Gallicum, i. 388 (1828), where Duby describes it as follows:-"S. dichotoma (Cav. Ic. i. p. 37 t. 50), foliis lanceolato-spathulatis mucronulatis petiolatis, scapis teretibus dichotomis ramosis ramis tuberculatis, floribus geminis secundis laxè spicatis spicis paniculatis, bracteis obtusis scariosis, perigonii externi dentibus subacutis. 2 in arenosis maritimis agri Syrtici propè la Teste reperiit cl. Des Moulins."

The description applies fairly well, but the identification with S. dichotoma Cav.-an endemic Spanish species-was of course erroneous. Eighteen years later the plant was included in Laterrade's Fl. Bordelaise, ed. 4, 295, with practically the same diagnosis as that given by Duby.

[ocr errors]

Both Nyman (Conspec. Fl. Europ. 612, under S. Dubyer) and Boissier (in DC. Prodr. xii. 661, under S. caspia) mention a S. diffusa Laterr. Fl. Bord. non Pourr.," but I have been unable to discover when this name appeared; ed. 2 of Laterrade's work is dated 1821, before the plant was discovered; ed. 4 I have already quoted; ed. 3 is not to be found in the libraries at South Kensington, Kew, or Linnean Society.

In 1850 our plant was properly described under Statice by Grenier and Godron (Fl. France, ii. 750), and named by them S. Dubyei. The description runs:-"Se distingue du précédent [S. bellidifolia Gouan] par sa panicule à rameaux très-allongés, étalés-dressés et non divariqués; par ses épillets plus gros, écartés les une des autres, distiques et disposés en épis allongés, lâches, flexueux, non agglomérés au sommet des rameaux; par sa bractée

* See Journ. Bot. 1903, 65; 1904, 361; 1905, 5, 54; 1907, 24, 428. JOURNAL OF BOTANY.-VOL. 46. [JANUARY, 1908.] B

inférieure bien plus longue, une fois plus corte que l'interne, lancéolée, aiguë; par sa bractée interne membraneuse seulement dans son tiers supérieur, plus évidemment ridée sur le dos; par son calice plus grande, à lobes plus aigus; par ses scapes décombants, diffus, à rameaux bien plus allongés. Hab. Bayonne, la Teste, Vieux-Boncau."

The description seems a very good one for our plant, but in comparing a series of examples of L. Dubyi with those of L. bellidifolium I have failed to observe in the former the alleged distinguishing characters of wrinkled inner bract membranous only in its upper third and larger calyx.

Boissier (. c.) has preferred to unite L. Dubyi with L. bellidifolium (in his herbarium it is labelled "S. caspia var. Dubyei "), but Nyman (Conspect. Fl. Europ. 612) kept both as distinct species. Most modern Floras adopt the latter plan, and it should certainly be followed by those who distinguish L. humile and L. vulgare; indeed, L. Dubui differs from L. bellidifolium as regards the arrangement of spikelets upon the branches almost exactly in a corresponding manner.

Coste (Fl. France, iii. 161) considers that L. Dubyi is a species peculiar to the south-west of France. The Index Kewensis mentions Spain; but I have failed to find any notice of the plant in Spanish or Balearic Floras, nor have I seen any examples from these parts; the mistake was no doubt caused by the plant being originally misnamed S. dichotoma, a well-known Spanish species.

After examining a number of specimens of L. Dubyi, including those of Des Moulins, who originally discovered the plant, and sent it to Duby, and also examples collected by Grenier, its chief divergences from L. bellidifolium appear to be the elongated diffuse branches; the longer laxer spike with more separated spikelets; the acute outer bract, which is also longer in proportion to inner, and thus covers more of its herbaceous part. LIMONIUM DUBYI O. Kuntze Rev. Gen. Pl. ii. 395 (1891).

Statice dichotoma Duby in DC. Bot. Gall. i. 388 (1828); Mutel Fl. Fr. iii. 88 (1836), non tab.; Laterr. Fl. Bord. ed. 4, 295 (1846); non Cav. nec al.

S. Dubyei Godr. & Gren. Fl. Fr. ii. 750 (1850).

S. caspia Boiss. in DC. Prodr. xii. 660 (1848), pro parte (non aliorum).

Icon.-Coste Fl. Fr. iii. 161, f. 3035.

Exsicc.-Lange Pl. Europ. Aust. 1851-52, 197! Soc. Fl. Franco-Helvet. 1898, 887! Dörfler Herb. Norm. 4176! Billot, 446 (ex Nyman).

Planta tota granulato-scabra, glabra; squamæ rarissime foliacea; scapus ab imo ramosissimus; rami pauci inferiores steriles, multifidi, raro plurimi; folia mox evanescentia, fere modica, obovata vel lanceolato-obovata; spice typice elongata laxiflora; spicule contigua sed non imbricata, interdum longe separatæ ; bractea exterior 1 1. longa ovato-acuta, a basi hyalina; bractea interior exteriore sesquilongior, late et usque ad superiorem tertiam partem hyalina; calyx 17-23 1. longus, lobis albis nunquam

« PreviousContinue »