TUG Kamion form is = IW. Cat. 416 B, wliich Walllcli only doiiblfully referred to
his P aplmifelia. ]t jitobably is the plant mtendad by Koyle {III. t. 72, / . 2) since
he %ntes a plant with a small lower lip, which is true of this, and since'specimens of
this ohtamed by him in Kamaon are preserved at Saharanpiu-. But the lip of his figarnd
plant is too small eren for this form, and he cites Koihmir in the text (p. 291) a°s one
locality; his Kashmir specimens, wliich are from Pyr Panjal, are true VAa. t,jfim only.
The various Kamaon gatherings exactly agree ; - c « l y x hirsute, upper tooth linear lanceolate
acute, hp of corolla i smuUr tlmi in vAl!. bjpecL, margin crennlate, central lobe ovate
lanceolate, galea J longer than in VAR. tj/pim, as narrow as tube. Dr. Scully's Nepal plant
differs considerably;—calyx glabresoent, all tlie teeth with ovate expanded tips, corolla lip
3 timss as hrg, as in VAa. iypiea, margin entire, lobes orbicular, galea narrower than tube.
The greatest difference is in the much larger Up; perhaps TAB. IxUroghssa should be coii-
Kdeted a species distinct from P. Oaderi with the Nepal plant as a definite variety of this
new species. Mr. Lfaximowicz describes another variety in 3M. Biol xii, 918. I have seen
no specruicn of this variety, and cannot express an opinion concerning its corolla hp • it lias
enhre calyx teeth, however, and has a tawny-red corolla. In TAN. kkroglossa the corolla
IS uniformly yellow; in vAB. t)pm, whether from the Alps of Europe, from Siberia, or
from liashmir, the corolla is, as it is throughout the Arctic circle, yellow with upper
part of galea, wherein the anthers lie, reddish-brown. This reddish-brown galea-top may
be absent and 2 red or piijj spots at the edge of the throat be present instead. This
variation occui-s in Swiss, in Norwegian and in Kashmir gatherings alike. Not infrequently
loo in European and in Arctic gatherings the corolla is, as it normally is in
VAli. Meroghss^, uniformly yellow. The species varies a good deal in habit, ranging
from a dwarf condition very much resembling P. Jlatmiea, with which species, owing to
the inadequacy of the Linnean diagnoses, many of the earlier European authors have
identified it, to a tall condition not unlike P. foHosa, tor which Gunner I.e. mistook
it. This condition-for it is no more than a robust condition of the Soandinavian-
Arctie form of the type-Wahlenberg [Pkr. Su,e. i, 389) even ventured to deal with
as a species (P. mrescas), and Hartmann (Fhr. Skand., 199) has kept it apart as a
vai-iety.
Those authors who have made an especial study of the genus (Steven, Bentham
Bunge, Maximowicz) agree in considering the Swiss form of this species conspecific witli
the Scandinavian, and this has to be borne in mind in dealing with the sj-nonymy
of the species, which is of so complex a nature and is so voluminous that I have
endeavoured to give it as nearly as possible in full, consulting each work quoted when
accessible to me, and getting friends in Europe to verify citations when the work
quoted was not available in India. As here and thore iu this mass of literature s
of citation have crept in, I have analysed tlie synonymy as a whole
the result is that a line may at once bo drawn between the synoi
and the synonymy of the present one, the synonyms of the earlie
of identity, those of i
of name. This will beconi
few errors
Briefly summarised,
lymy of last century
authors being the
recent writers being the outcome of a
more apparent if the historical method
result of a confu:
dispute as to priority
he pursued.
The specics was identified by OiiDBE (1761, with P. Jlammm of Linntus, nor is there
anything in Liimaius' verbal diagnosis (17531 to prevent tlie identification. But Limmm
(1763) at once detected the want of agreement between Oeder's figure and Ids own
species. He, doubtfully however, referred Oeder's plant to his own P. kirsuia, a step in
which no European botanist appears to have followed him, except SMITH, whose description
(1819) shows more ovidence of compilation than of study of sjieoimens. Gmmi
(1760) again took the same Norwegian plant for P.jtammm; HALLEE (1768) and Amom
(178,5) placed the Swiss form of tho species under P. Jlavitm also. Haller's criticism of
Oeder's figure only succeeds in showing that Ms specimens were inadequate, and hi, own
figure is not particularly instructive. WLLLDEBOW (1800) is doubtful about referring the
Norwegian plant to P. fiariDnea,; neither he, nor Allioni or LAMAHCK (1778) before him nor
PoiRET (1804) or DE CANDOLLB (1805) after him, hesitate about referring the Swiss plant
to Lmnaius' P. famma. EETZIUS (Fltr. Sca,i., ed. i, 1779) expressed for the first
time the opinion that the plant figured by Oeder was specifically distinct alike from
P. Jlammm and from P. hirsuta, and though H™<E (1788) in a very lengthy and
careful article rebuts this opinion of Eetzius, and insists on the identity of this
species with P. Jlammea, Eetzius declined to agree with him, and re-assorted (179.1) his
opinion that it may be a good species. Unfortunately Retzius did not formulate
his opinion by providing the species thus recognised by him with a definition and a
name. Hajocke's description is extremely accurate, but cui-iously he omits
the hairs on the anterior pair of filaments which his Judenburg specimen'
to mention
exhibited, and which after all afford the most palpable diagnostic mark hetw"must e
have
ipecies and P. Jlammsa. It is somewhat strange that Walpers, whoso citations
I this
.re as
ittributes the article by Hajncke to Wulfen, and places it in vol i
i of Jacqum's CoUectanm; p. 70, vol i, which lie actually quotes is
a rule so correct,
instead of in vol.
occupied by accounts of Sugmbrium pammictm and Turrilis hirata by Jacquin himself
Even if the citation of a wrong volume be only an oversight in reading proof tlio
misquotation of authority stiH remains. Eetrius' view was adopted by VAHI,°(1806) who
described the Norwegian form of the species under the name P. OedeH. WAIIEELEHO
does not seem to have been aware of the appearance of Vahl's name in 1813 when
he described the same fonn as P. famnm VAK. major, and probably was still ignorant of
that name in the following year, when he gave the name P. vorsicolor to the Swiss forn
of the species. HABTMAKN, who in 1814 was of opinion that Oeder's Scandinavian „!,„,
was the same as P. / „ „ , noted in 1818 that it is really conspecific with tho Sw l
P . «ermohr. What is of gi-eater interest for us is to know that when Hartmann wrote
m 1818 he was aware that this species (P. „„icolor) was known to Danish botanists
as P. Oederi, but there is nothing to show whether his preference f„r
berg's name over Vahl's was because he thought that Vahl's name had been
Wahlen.
between 1813 and 181S, or because of a laxity ihen prevah
published
icognising priority. Hartmaun's view received the
prevalent in the matter „f
•ant of STEVEM'S judgment in 182'i
though there is no indio.tion that Steven knew of the prior publication of a name f „
t i e Norwegian plant, and Steven's limitation was adopted by the elder EE,C„E»,AOH
the followmg year. In the same year (1823) SPBESGEL gave a valuelo'
between the two forms, and NYMAN so lah
verbal diagm
1854 kept theiu apart in the S,JI
specics. He quotes Hartmann as already having expressed this view; but, tLugt"i::
ANN. BOY. BOT. GAI . III.