pdf 31 MB - BSBI Archive

344 SPERGULA PENTANDEA IN lEELAND.
citations wbich I had made. But he writes that I "did not seem
to be aware that this [E. B. Plate No. 1536] is reproduced in the
3rd edition of 'Enghsh Botany, t. 253, and cited by Syme as
S. arvensis var. sativa, which it undoubtedly represents." If the
plate in Syme's Eng. Bot. 253 be consulted (I am assuming that
my copy is not an exceptional one), it will be found to be labelled
8. arvensis var. vulgaris, and not as the Editor cites, S. arvensis var.
sativa. In the text, vol. ii., p. 127, of the same work it is also
named var. vulgaris, and reference there given to the E. B. plate
1536. Byme also adds an important footnote :— " The seeds of the
two varieties a and h have inadvertently been transposed in the
two plates," that is, the figures of the seeds in the vulgaris plate
are figures of the seed of sativa, and vice versa.
Even this does not altogether conclude the matter, for although
it is true that the outline of the E. B. plate 1536 is reproduced,
and the number is quoted on the plate No. 253 in Syme's E. B.,
yet the characteristic pubescence very noticeable on the original
plate has been apparently intentionally suppressed in the reproduced
plate 253, although there are faint traces of hairs in the lower leaves
only. So that to me it no longer represents an " undoubted figure
of var. sativa," while if we follow Syme's directions given in the
footnote already quoted and transpose the figures of the seeds, we
shall obtain a plate which fairly well represents (although no
petals are drawn in detail) the subglabrous state of S. vulgaris as
it occurs in rich arable soil.
The point raised in my paper might have been more clearly
stated. I ventured to claim that the omission of Spergula pentandra
from the list of British plants is based on an error, namely this, that-
" the plant found by Sherard in Ireland was one of the species of-
Lepigonum." But we find that the original specimen given by
Sherard to Dillenius is true S. pentandra, not a Lepigonum ; that his
foreign specimens oi pentandra collected or obtained by himself and
preserved in his own herbarium are not confused with Lepigonum,
and that the description in the ' Synopsis' is accurate; for these
reasons we may assume that Sherard was well acquainted with the
plant in question. The statement that he mistook a Lepigonum
[Buda) for it is unsupported by evidence. We know that he visited
several parts of Ireland, and plants sent by him from there are
again and again mentioned in the ' Synopsis.' An example pertinent
to the case of Spergula ijentandra is that of L'hara 2)olyacantha, which
was collected by Sherard in Ireland. It was figured in Plukenet
in 1691, but not for a long time properly identified and admitted to
the British Flora. The identification we owe to Messrs. Groves
(see Journ. Bot. 1880, 131).
As I have pointed out, the continental distribution oi S . j)cntandra
is not antagonistic to its occurrence as a native plant in Ireland.
My concluding remark would be that the tbiug to be desired now
is its re-discovery in Ireland. This was the reason for writing the
note in the 'Annals of Botany,' and for paying a hurried visit to
the south of Ireland this year. My search was not rewarded by
success, but I have reason to believe that the ground which