HELLEBORINE HILL V. EPIPACTIS ADANS. BY G. CLARIDGE DRUCE, M.A., F.L.S. IN reviewing The Dillenian Herbaria, the Editor (Journ. Bot. p. 282, 1907) demurred to my use of the generic name Helleborine instead of the generally accepted Epipactis. I first suggested the name in Ann. Scott. Nat. Hist. 1905, p. 48, because during my work I became saturated with pre-Linnean names, and became convinced that Adanson's generic name Epipactis must give way to that of Helleborine, as established by Hill and understood by Ray, Tournefort, Haller (in his early writings), and other botanists, and as previously understood by Caspar Bauhin (Pinax 187, 1671). Both Ray and Tournefort lay stress on the nerved leaves and fibrous roots. In this conclusion the Editor now concurs, and it may be well to put on record the reasons which led to it. In the preparation of the as yet unpublished "Flora of Buckinghamshire," my attention was naturally directed to John. Hill, who lived at Denham in that county; and in going through his Vegetable System, his Herbarium Britannicum, and especially the British Herbal, I became struck with his general knowledge and ability at arriving at an independent judgement, and saw how unfairly he had been treated by his contemporaries and his immediate successors-few if any references to him are to be found in Hudson's Flora Anglica, Smith's Flora Britannica, The English Flora, or even in Withering's Natural Arrangement. Until quite recently his Herbal was considered to be pre-Linnean, and no more available for reference than Gerard's Herbal or Parkinson's Theatrum; even the Index Kewensis treats it in that sense; nor does Kuntze in his Revisio avail himself of its information. The general acceptance of the date 1753 for the starting-point of both generic and specific citation brought the work into more general recognition, although, like the works of Miller, it has received but slight attention in the excellent Genera Siphonogamarum by Dalla Torre. Messrs. Groves (Manual of British Botany, 1904) have revived the genera Radicula and Cammarum, the latter placed in the unsatisfactory list of nomina rejicienda of the Vienna Congress, and attach Hill's name to several genera until then wrongly attributed to more recent workers. Hill naturally belonged to the school of Ray, and in many cases resented the unnecessary alterations in the names and conceptions of genera which Linnæus brought about. He showed his scientific insight in many cases by refusing to accept the views held by Linnæus, and often succeeded in proving those definitions to be erroneous. I may instance Valerianella, which Linnæus had merged with the distinct genus Valeriana; Limonium, which Linnæus had wrongly put in Statice; Linaria, included by Linnæus in Antirrhinum; and Melilotus, put with Trifolium. Hill also correctly separated Mariana from Carduus, Centaurium from Gentiana, Glaucium from Papaver, Polygonatum from Convallaria, Radiola from Linum, Nymphoides from Menyanthes, Onobrychis from Hedysarum, Fœniculum from Anethum, Petasites from Tussilago, Oxyria from Rumex, Damasonium from Alisma, Phyllitis from Asplenium, Meum from Athamanta, Alnus from Betula, Castanea from Fagus, Cirsium from Carduus, Oxycoccus from Vaccinium, Pneumaria from Pulmonaria, Cammarum from Helleborus, Radicula from Sisymbrium, Lens from Ervum, and, as we shall see, Helleborine from Serapias. In the British Herbal, p. 477, Hill thus defines Helleborine :"The flower is placed upon the rudiment of the seed-vessel, without any cup, and is composed of five petals; and there is placed within a nectarium, of a oval form, hollowed at the base and divided at the top into three parts, the middle one of which is heart-fashioned. The leaves are broad and nervous, and the root is composed of interwoven fibres." It will be noticed that the last sentence definitely excludes the species of Serapias, described by Linnæus in the Species Plantarum as S. Lingua; it is practically taken from Ray and Tournefort's description of Helleborine. Hill goes on to say, "Linnæus places this among the gynandria decandria, the filaments being two and inserted in the pistil. He takes away the received name and calls it serapias." We have thus in Hill's description a proper definition of the genus as understood by Tournefort; the six species he describes consist only of Helleborine and the plants subsequently separated under the name Cephalanthera by Richard. Of the six species described by Hill, five are cited from Caspar Bauhin, and one (Cephalanthera longifolia) from Ray's Historia.* It may be well to see what the genus Epipactis Adanson really is. In his Famille des Plantes, ii. 70, 1763,† he separates no new genus apart from Serapias as understood by Linnæus, but, on the contrary, adds vastly and most unscientifically to it. Adanson defines his genus Epipactis "Racines traçantes; feuilles grandes le long des tiges; fleurs panicule et épi; calice pendante, striée de nervures en dedans; capsule médiocre; graines plates, ailées." This description is quite indefinite compared with that of Hill. It may be urged that Adanson does not cite Serapias L. among the synonyms, but he does cite Serapias Diosk., and he does not include the genus Serapias among his six genera of OrchidaceæVanilla, Calceolus, Ophrys, Neottia, Orchis, and Satyrium. His Epipactis is, indeed, rather a rubbish-heap than a properly formu * The localities given under No. 6, “woods in our northern counties," cannot refer to Cephalanthera rubra, which is Bauhin's species, and he has probably confused it with Helleborine atrorubens. Hudson (Flora Anglica) fell into the same error. Hill follows Dillenius in referring 66 Helleborine latifolia flore albo clauso" to C. grandiflora S. F. Gray, and not to C. ensifolia, as I at one time thought; see Journ. Bot. 1907, p. 240. † Adanson's genera are often inadequately diagnosed, but light is not infrequently thrown on their meaning by the synonyms given in the erratic "Table" or Index. In this instance ("Table," l. c., ii. 554) he writes, "Epipactis Diosk. Mor. s. 12, t. 11, f. 15 [Cypripedium] Catesb. i. t. 58 [Pogonia divaricata Br.]. Elleborine Diosk. Tourn. t. 249. Mart. Cent. t. 50, Orchis, C. B. Prod. 29. Col. Ecp. t. 322, Serapias Diosk. Borion Diosk. Emboline Plin. Limodorum L. Aretusa L. Elleborine Gall." [i. e. the French name]. lated genus; it certainly includes both Serapias and Helleborine, in addition to many other genera, and his synonymy shows that it covered Cypripedium and Pogonia. It may, however, be contended that Epipactis, as established by Crantz, is available. This author (Stirpes Austriacum, fasc. vi. 456, 1769) writes" Epipactis Haller," giving also synonyms"Ophrys, Nidusavis, Helleborine Tourn. aliorum: Ophrys, Serapias, Neottia, Herminium Linn." He continues: "Capsulæ antheriferæ duæ sibi vicinæ in glande articulata scapo staminifero et mobili." But this definition is useless to separate Serapias from Helleborine; indeed, as the synonyms quoted show, it is meant to cover both. The original Epipactis of Haller was founded on a single species, i. e. Goodyera, although it would appear that he subsequently lost grip of its characters, and added to that genus plants he formerly more correctly put in Helleborine; but, in any case, Haller's Epipactis is pre-Linnean. In fact, Crantz's genus Epipactis is scarcely less inchoate than that of Adanson, including as it does no fewer than eight genera. The publication, in 1805, by Willdenow, of his edition of the Species Plantarum, in which he followed Swartz (Act. Holm. 231, 1805) in using the name Epipactis to represent Helleborine, Cephalanthera, Listera, Neottia, &c., led Brown (Aiton Hort. Kew. v. 201, 1813), Gray (Nat. Arr. ii. 212, 1821), and Smith (British Flora, iv. p. 40, 1828) to adopt that name, which in Britain has been in general use since that time. It being thus evident that Hill's genus Helleborine must supersede Epipactis Adans., the British species will stand as follows:H. LATIFOLIA Druce in Ann. Scott. Nat. Hist. 1905, 48, and Dill. Herb. 115 (1907) E. latifolia All. Fl. Pedem. ii. 152 (1785). = Var. ATROVIRIDIS Druce l.c. – E. atroviridis W. R. Linton Fl. H. MEDIA Druce ll. c. = E. media Fries Mant. ii. 54 (1839). (1857). = E. violacea Boreau Fl. Centre ii. 651 H. ATRORUBENS Druce ll. c. = E. atrorubens J. A. Schultes Fl. Österr. ed. 2, i. 58 (1814). == H. LONGIFOLIA Rendle & Britten in Journ. Bot. 1907, 441 E. longifolia R. & B. List of Seed-plants 29 (1907) (E. palustris Crantz Stirp. Austr. 462 (1769); H. palustris Schrank Fl. Monac. ii. 190 (1814). See Journ. Bot. 1907, 105, 441). [While entirely in accordance with Mr. Druce in the adoption of Helleborine Hill (see Journ. Bot. 1907, 441) we are still of the opinion (expressed op. cit. 283) that Hill intended to restore the name as an equivalent of the Linnean genus Serapias, as indeed his words indicate. But his description, being confined to plants in the British Flora, excluded the plants to which Serapias is now restricted: and Helleborine thus applies to the British species, its limits being restricted later by the segregation of Cephalanthera. -ED. JOURN. BOT.] CRITICAL STUDY OF RANUNCULUS AQUATILIS L. VAR. y. BY FREDERIC N. WILLIAMS, F.L.S. THE Batrachian Ranunculi, grouped together as a section of Ranunculus by De Candolle in Syst. Nat. i. 233 (1818), were raised to the dignity of a genus by S. F. Gray in Nat. Arr. Brit. Pl. ii. 720 (1821), but were still further reduced in grade to a subsection of the section Marsypadenium by Prantl in Engler's Jahrbuch, ix. 266 (1887); which subordinate position, from the unsatisfactory nature of their defined specific characters, better befits the group. Pending a much desired monograph of Ranunculus, the Batrachian group has attracted the critical attention of many botanists, whose opinions have varied as much as the deviations from the type in the more widely distributed species. Several of the so-called species (as defined) appear to merge into each other; and the differences which are alleged to separate one from the other are rather questions of degree than precise and definite characters. From the wide distribution of these plants in still waters, in running streams, in shallow pools, the deep margins of lakes, in muddy ponds, ditches, the wet mud of river-banks, in marginal reaches, and quarry holes, their extreme variability, especially in leaf-form, is remarkable. Of the characters attributed to the species and their subordinate forms, too much attention has been given to inconstant characters, of which some are variable, others valueless, and others deceptive; such especially as the tapering of the peduncle, the relative length of petals, stamens, and styles, the contiguity or otherwise of the petals, the number of stamens, the forms of the receptacle, achenes, and unfertilized pistils, and especially upon the presence or absence of floating leaves. In a group of plants so sensitive to the modifying influence due to the varying conditions of their immediate environment, especially in so far as it affects their vegetative organs, it is to the floral organs and especially perhaps to the external characters of the pistil that one has to look for the primary characters which distinguish species from one another, and at the same time serve to elucidate the natural affinities between the different members of the group which their reticular bond of union so effectually obscures. With the character of the pistils may also be associated that of the receptacle to which they are laterally attached, whether spherical or ovate-conical in form, and whether hispid, ciliate, or glabrous. The multiformity of leaf-variation in Hieracium, and of prickleand-gland variation in Rubus, has deeply complicated the study of forms under these two genera. Unless the inter-specific affinities are clearly marked off from intra-specific variation by characters more definite than those of leaf-modification, which are mainly if not entirely due to the chemical composition, temperature, depth, and movement of the water in which they grow, the study of the correlated forms of the water crowfoots will render the attempts to group them satisfactorily as nugatory and ineffectual as in the case of the brambles and hawkweeds. Godron, in Fl. de France, i. p. 19 (1847), pointed out the characters derived from the structure of the receptacle and pistils for the discrimination and grouping of species; and the late Mr. O. Gelert, in a memoir in Botanisk Tidsskrift, xix. p. 7 (1894), indicated the structure of the stigma and the form of the papillæ as a constant character. The classical memoir on the Batrachian Ranunculi in this Journal (vol. ix. 1871), by Mr. W. P. Hiern, forms a comprehensive basis for all future work on the subject. Following the method adopted by Mr. Hiern, it will be convenient here to give a chronological list of specific names which have been applied to a part or the whole of what is included by Linnæus in Ranunculus aquatilis var. y-(1) as under Ranunculus and (2) under Batrachium. RANUNCULUS. 1753. R. aquatilis var. y L. Sp. Plant. 556. 1782. R. fœniculaceus Gilibert Fl. Lithuanica, iv. 261, n. 177. 1786. R. trichophyllus Chaix in Vill. Hist. Pl. Dauphiné, i. 335. 1789. R. capillaris Gaterau Pl. env. Montauban, 102—“ var. dont toutes les feuilles sont capillaires." 1789. R. divaricatus Schrank Baiersche Flora, ii. 104, n. 859. 1846. R. confervoides Fries Summa Veg. Scand. i. 139. 1847. R. trichophyllus Godr. in Gren. et Godr. Fl. de France, i. 23 (Nov.). 1847. R. Drouetii Godr. in Gren. et Godr. Fl. de France, i. 24 (Nov.). 1848. R. Rionii Lagg. in Flora, xxxi. 1. 49 (Jan.). 1856. R. sphærospermus Boiss. et Blanche in Boiss. Diagn. Pl. nov. or. ser. II. v. 6. 1859. R. lutulentus Song. et Perr. in Not. Pl. Savoie, et in Billot Annot. Pl. France, 181 (1859). 1860. R. micranthus Brügg. in Zeitschr. Ferdinand. Tirol, III. ix. 7. 1869. R. stenopetalus Syme in Rep. Bot. Exch. Club, 1869, 7. 1871. R. hydrocharis formæ 22, 25, 27, 28, 29, 32, Hiern in Journ. Bot. pp. 100-103 (caspitosus, trichophyllus, Rionii, confervoides, Drouetii, sphærospermus). 1876. R. trichophylloides Humnicki Cat. Pl. Luxeuil, dept. HauteSaône, 7. |