Plate 62. With a bad figure of the papaya (Cárica Papaya L.), we have six poor figures of two species of Sphinx, evidently distinct, but which cannot be ascertained, unless, perhaps, by those who may capture the larvæ.

Plate 63. Above are three figures of some Satúrnia, the hairs of whose larva are said to have caused on her hands the most painful irritation, which subsided on the use of oil. Below are three rude figures of what is said to be the Hespèria Proteus Fabr. 256. Gmel. 2362. A branch of the coco tree is stuck in the ground, and, by means of much distortion and alteration, is at length made to represent a capsicum bush more than any thing else in nature. Though the pericarp is not very large or heavy, Flora in this most precious tree only suspends the fruit on the trunk and larger branches, and the frail and delicate blossoms have a singular appearance as they start (like the marble snowdrop in its chilling bed) from the moss-clad, rough, and unsightly bark. The plate is worthless.

Plate 64. On another poor sketch of the papaya we have six figures of two doubtful Sphingida; the lower one has been said to be the Sphinx cárica Fabr. 67. Gmel. 2379.

Plate 65. On a branch of some Citrus are three figures of Bombyx Hésperus Fabr. 2. Gmel. 2401., all worthless.

Plate 66. The insects are, perhaps, Mántis siccifòlia Fabr. 24. Gmel. 2049. See also Mántis precària Fabr. 32. Gmel. 2050. The triangular mass beneath, on which are seen eggs and young, I suspect to be a fungus, and not the collection of eggs; for though in this genus there is no egg-cell (loculus), as in the Bláttadæ, the ova are always deposited in some determined and tolerably regular shape and group. The quadruped is the Didélphis dorsígera Gmel., with its young, rather too fancifully mounted all together on the parent's

back.

Plate 67. On a branch of the cultivated fig we have three figures of an undetermined Papílio of a group, the larvæ of which have cervical, elongate, retractile osmateria, or scent vessels in this species they are said to imitate the anal mastigia (or whips) of other larvæ, and to give a painful wound, but I doubt the fact. There are also three figures of an unknown moth, remarkable for the spiny process of the pupa.

Plate 68. Above are six figures of two small undetermined moths, and below four coarse ones of Papilio Telémachus Fabr. 269. Gmel. 2245.

Plate 69. A rude figure of the crocodile of Surinam, which is said, without probability, to arrive there at the length of

more than 20 feet; and the beautiful Coluber Scýtale of Gmelin.

Plate 70. is a showy representation of a ground lizard, which she complains of, as destroying her hen's eggs in the coops.

Plate 71. We have here (A) figures of the singular Ràna paradóxa Cuv., and (B) others illustrating the changes of European frogs. The unusual transformations here recorded by the fair author, have, of course, no foundation in fact. The only circumstance worthy of notice is, that this species remains a very long time in its caudate state, and, indeed, acquires, contrary to the usual law, the greater part of its bulk while yet a tadpole.

Plate 72. The work concludes with a zoological caricature, equalling Hogarth's distorted perspective, for we have here a larva half the length of the towering column of an areca palm. The plate is crowded with various animals from different parts of the world, introduced without reason or judgment. No. 1-5. are immature Rànæ. A, B, C, are marine plants, or flexible corallines or Gorgònic. D is the O'strea folium? E, F, useless figures of shells. G is the Scarabæ`us

Acta on Gmel. 1529., one of the giant group called Megasoma by our learned countryman, the rector of Barham [Mr. Kirby]. On the tree are obscure outlines of larvæ and pupæ, and above are represented a bunch of the berries of the areca, two Papiliònes, and a South American Zygæ`na?

I am, Sir, yours, &c.

St. Vincent, Jan. 29. 1831.

LANSDOWN GUILDING.

ART. XI. On the supposed generic Distinction of Ranunculus Ficària of Linné. By CHARLES C. BABINGTON, M.A. F.L.S. &c. THE Ranúnculus Ficària Linn. having been considered by many botanical writers of high authority as distinct generically from the other Ranúnculi, and having been described by them under the names of Ficària vérna and F. ranunculöides, I have been induced to examine the characters on which the genus Ficària is founded, and now give the result.

The plant now under consideration was first formed into a distinct genus by Hudson, in his Flora Anglica, p. 244., in year 1762, under the name of Ficària vérna, in which he has been followed by Persoon and De l'Arbre. In 1794,

the

Moench, in his Methodus Plant. Horti et Agri Malburgensis, gave it the name of F. ranunculöìdes; a name totally inadmissible, being, in the words of Sir J. E. Smith [English Flora, iii. 47.], "a barbarous jumble of Latin and Greek." He is, however, followed in that nomenclature by Roth and De Candolle, and by Biria, in his Histoire Naturelle des Renoncules. In this country, Lindley also has adopted the latter name in Loudon's Encyc. of Plants, but considered the plant as a Ranúnculus in his Synopsis of the British Flora; and Mr. George Don has done the same in his recently published General System of Gardening and Botany. All other botanical authors have, I believe, followed Linné in considering this plant as a species of Ranúnculus.

The characters given by all the above-mentioned botanists to distinguish the genera Ficària and Ranúnculus rest wholly upon the comparative numbers of the sepals and petals; Ficària having 3 sepals, and 9 petals; and Ranúnculus, 5 sepals, and 5 or rarely 10 petals.

That number is of no value in this case, any more than in many, I may, perhaps, be allowed to say in all, the other cases in which it alone has been employed as a generic character, is, I think, clearly shown by the tables opposite, drawn up from the examination of 2682 specimens of this plant. It will be seen that some of the varieties which I have noticed are true Ranúnculi, having sepals 5, and petals 5 or 10; and that, so far from 9 being the typical number of petals, 8 occurs in very many more, and 7 in nearly an equal number of cases.

I will, however, leave the reader to draw his own conclusions from the facts, and only add, that I am indebted to my friend W. A. Leighton, Esq., for an account of some specimens examined by him at Shrewsbury, given in column 5. of Table I.

In all the subvarieties under varieties 8, 12, and 17, in which the petals are more in number than nine, I consider those above that number as stamens transformed into petals; as they may, as I believe, be always referred to a whorl within that of the true petals.

In one specimen of variety 8 subvariety 2, two of the stamens had become small scales, being apparently in the first stage of their transformation into petals.

In variety 7 subvariety 3, I consider one of the petals to be a transformed stamen, it being slightly within the other petals; and in variety 6 subvariety 3, one of the regular outer whorl of sepals is half converted into a petal.

TABLE I. Showing the relative numbers of the sepals and petals in 17 distinct varieties, noticed in the examination of 2682 specimens. The * added to the number of sepals, denotes that one additional sepal is placed more or less below the flower in the form of a bractea; denotes that one of the petals consisted of two agglutinated together, and having two nectariferous scales at its base; and,, that one petal was formed of three joined in the same manner.

TABLE II.-Stating the total number of instances of each of the several variations in each whorl which occurred in the whole number of specimens.

Number of parts [in either of the 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9, &c.

whorls]

[Number of examples in the whorl

of] sepals

[Number of examples in the whorl of] petals

3 2427 214 38 0 0 0 0

0 0 1 1075 432 1679 485

[A variety of the Ranúnculus Ficària L., or Ficària vérna Hudson, is cultivated in gardens, in the flowers of which whorls of petals, interior to the usual exterior whorl next to the sepals, occupy, and compactly fill up, the whole included space. Whether any stamens, or pistils, or portions of these, are produced amongst them, I have not examined.-J. D.]

Paris quadrifolia.- In addition to Professor Henslow's table (in V. 431.) of the conditions of this species, I supply the following, observed in plants of it at Bath, in June, 1832: they note one new variety, No. 39.

94

CHARLES C. BABINGTON. 16 5 4 4

St. John's College, Cambridge,

May 13. 1834.

84 18

84

22

5 5 4

94

39

6 5 5

10 5

8511

Are Potentilla réptans, and Tormentilla réptans, distinct species? (VI. 251.) — In this neighbourhood Tormentílla réptans has five petals in, I would at a rough guess say, three cases out of every four; and hence it is extremely difficult to distinguish between it and Potentilla réptans. The calyx of Potentilla réptans itself is, too, sometimes 8-cleft; and, when this circumstance is coupled with the former, I cannot conceive any imaginable specific distinction between it and Tormentílla réptans. Indeed, I am inclined to believe that they are only varieties of one species, dependent on differences of soil.-J. Jones. Gelly, Llanfair, Montgomeryshire, March 28. 1834.

ART. XII. Short Communications.

MALA CHIUS bipunctatus Babington is not M. ruficollis Panzer. (p. 178.) "Plate 8. fig. 2.", or, as is probably intended, Part 8. No. 2., of Panzer, quoted by Mr. Dale (p. 178.) is Scólytus æneus, the Diáperis ænea of Panzer's Index Entomologicus, and of more modern entomological works; an insect of a totally different section of the Coleoptera, of which fig. 49. a is a correct outline. Malàchius rufficóllis (as Panzer

spells it), Part 2. No. 10., is correctly copied from his figure in d; and my figure b is a very good representation of M. bipunctatus described by me in this Magazine (V. 329.). — Charles C. Babington.