has blended this species with that on our next Plate, and
both with the Crocus reticulatus of Marsh (FI. Taur. Cau-
casic. v. l .p. §8); which itself is only a very slight variety of
still another species, as the reader will learn in the account
of our next Plate, to which we refer him.
Our present subject much resembles Crocus bijtorus of
Miller, and of Ker in the Botanical Magazine, t. 845 ; but
is scarcely half the size of that plant, and has not its jag-
gedly divided root-coats. The above-mentioned figure of
the Magazine portrays a plant kept dry out of the ground
too long, and perhaps planted too shallow, whence the
leaves, which I-constantly perceive are higher than the
flowers in every stage of growth, were unnaturally shortened.
Its root-coats also are badly represented.
Crocus pusillus of Tenore, and of Sweet in his Hardy
Flower Garden, is perhaps still nearer to our plant, being
of similar size and colour, but differing in the shorter inner
laciniae of the floWer, and probably in its root-coats; which
last, however, I have not yet been able to procure and examine.—
A. H . H a w o r t h , April 21, 1830.