Page:Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, Volume 10.djvu/34

 {| width="100%" floribus minoribus, pallidioribus et obtusioribus." At the same time I cannot admit it to be these following, which are there referred to, viz. Moris. s. 8. t. 9. f. 1. nor Relhan's articulatus, who gives his from Leers, petala acutissima. Nor is it R. Syn. 433. No. 9. entirely;—it is Doody&apos;s plant there mentioned, which he tells us he found in Peckham-field, "cum glumis albis." It may, by the definition, be Haller's plant, No. 1323, "foliis teretibus articulatis, panicula repetito-ramosa;" but his description evidently comprehends the as well as this. Withering&apos;s 5th var. of articulatis, p. 347. "husks white," seems to be this plant.
 * width="10%" align="left" | 12
 * width="80%" align="center" | Mr. &apos;s Determination of
 * width="10%" align="right" |
 * }
 * }

These references prove that this species has not hitherto escaped notice; but I wonder that the character, from which I was inclined to take its trivial name, has not been noted by any writer I have seen!

As I wished to avoid the confusion which naturally arises from repeatedly changing names, my design was to have named the three species;—the, compressus; the , nemorosus—both after Dr. Sibthorp; and my , divaricatus—a trivial appellation which I think particularly suitable to it.

I communicated this my idea, of three species, to my respected friend Dr. Smith, who gave it as his opinion that they ought to be separated, and that the same thought had occurred to Ehrhart, who has made three species of them, under the following names:—lampocarpus, (my ); acutiflorus, (my ); obtusiflorus, (my ); which accord exactly with my notion.

These names I now adopt; and, as I have not seen Ehrhart's definitions, I define them as follows.