I cannot but consider T. humile of Desfontaines, Fl. Atlant. v. 1. 325. t. 58, as indubitably T. apulum. It accords exactly in size and habit with Dr. Sibthorp's Greek specimens. Willdenow, by some accident, has not adverted to this plant.
Scopoli's T. siifolium, Fl. Carn. ed. 2. v. 1. 194. t. 8, comes very near to our apulum, agreeing in the solitary radiant petal, with two equal lobes. But the flowers are red, not white; the leaflets broader, less divided, and more uniform; and the fruit bristly, which last may atford a good specific character. The general involucrum moreover is said to consist of only one or two small leaves.
I cannot conclude these remarks without adverting to T. peregrinum, Linn. Mant. 55. Sm. Prodr. Fl. Græc. Sibth. n. 633. This is Conium dichotomum of Desfontaines, Fl. Atlant. v. 1. 246. t. 66, who seems not aware of its being a Linnæan plant. Its seeds indeed bear some resemblance to those of a Conium; and the flowers, which the able author just cited never saw, are uniform, scarcely radiant. The habit and foliage agree with Conium rather than with Tordylium. But, on the other hand, the character of the involucella dimidiata is not observable, and the crisped margin of the seeds answers better to Tordylium, though their strongly 3-ribbed disk is adverse, and rather belongs to Conium. To the latter genus I should perhaps consent to remove this species. Professor Sprengel, in his Prodr. Plant. Umbellif. 12 & 21, refers it to Cachrys; but I cannot discover any peculiar coat to the seed, which, according to that learned writer's own principles, might justify such a measure. It is remarkable that he distinguishes the plant of Linnæus from that of Desfontaines, though certainly without any foundation.
Norwich, Feb. 10, 1817.J. E. Smith.
XXI. Ob-
