fig. 122., requires no query, and is represented, or some other variety extremely like it, in Ernst's Pap. d'Europe, vol. i. tab. 13. fig. 16. e. and 16. f." The above remarks of my friend, Mr. Haworth, are, I think, worthy of a place in the Retrospective Criticism of one of your future Numbers. Yours, &c.-W. T. Bree. Allesley Rectory, Dec. 20. 1832.

Póntia Chariclèa, seen on the Wing, Feb. 10. 1831. — Mr. Bree says (p. 88.):- "I never knew an instance of Póntia Chariclea appearing so early (Feb. 10.) in the season. Might not Sigma probably have mistaken the female of Gonépteryx rhámni, for P. Chariclèa? Why, also, is P. Chariclèa styled the early white butterfly, when there are at least two other species, viz., P. ràpæ and P. nàpi, which invariably appear before it?" It is possible that I might have mistaken the species of Póntia for some others, as it was on the wing, but I think it could not have been P. ràpæ, from its size; and am nearly certain, from the whiteness of its plumage, it was not P. napi; its earliness precluded (as I think) its being P. brássica; and the form of its wings prevented my mistaking it for Gonépteryx rhámni, as well as the colour, which is different, even in the female, to any of the white butterflies. Mr. Rennie, or his authority, Mr. Stephens, must bear the blame, if any there be, of P. Chariclèa being designated early" white butterfly, as (in Vol. II. p. 226.) he has so called it, and this is the only answer I can give to the latter of Mr. Bree's queries. Supposing, however, I was correct as to the kind of butterfly, it will now fairly have earned the distinction of "early white." I ought, perhaps, to say, though the day was in February, as to temperature it was really an April day, the thermometer having ranged the day before from 50° to 59°, and this day (10th) from 48° to 58°; thus inviting the appearance of many other insects.

66

Vanessa lo caught, Jan. 5. 1833. Mr. Bree remarks, also, that he has seen "Vanéssa urticæ so early as January 8th (1805), in the Isle of Wight." Although our neighbourhood is by no means warm in the winter, yet on the fifth of the present month (Jan. 1833) a boy brought me a specimen of Vanessa lo, which he had caught in the town, and which I should think is a very unusual occurrence.

In the last sentence of my communication in Vol. V. p. 753. "1800," is a misprint for "1830."-Sigma. Saffron Walden, Jan. 21. 1833.

The poisonous Properties of the Seeds of the Laburnum (Cýtisus Labúrnum). (p. 74.)- As to the poisonous properties of seeds of the laburnum, I recollect that when I was a boy, some one in the family had been told that the pods of the

tree when boiled constituted no bad substitute for French beans. Accordingly, a dish of the green pods, that is, the seed-vessels containing the unripe seeds, was prepared and served up at table. Of course the whole of our family party (consisting of two grown persons and two children), were it only out of curiosity, tasted of the new-fashioned culinary vegetable; but, as it proved, by unanimous consent, harsh, stringy, and ill-flavoured, no one, if I remember right, swallowed more than a small portion of it. No bad effect, however, ensued from the experiment.-W. T. Bree. Allesley Rectory, Jan. 10. 1833.

The Leaves and glandulated Hairs of the Drosera rotundifòlia do possess Irritability. (Vol. IV. p. 135., Vol. V. p. 26. 491. 755.) — When we discover that we have fallen into an error, we cannot acknowledge it too speedily, both for the ease of our own consciences, and the satisfaction of others. Alas! how often have we to retract opinions conceived, perhaps, in too great haste, too hastily uttered, and of which our after observation shows us the fallacy. But I am not about to write a moral essay, and therefore will not trouble the readers of this Magazine with any farther reflections. What I have now to say relates to the opinion a short time since expressed by me (Vol. V. p. 755.), that the leaves of Drosera rotundifolia possess no claims to irritability; and I must own this opinion to have been advanced upon too short an investigation. Farther study of the plant has induced me to coincide with J. E. L. (Vol. V. p. 757.) in his views on the subject: and, to me, what both himself and Mr. Thomson (Vol. V. p. 756.) have said touching the habits of the sundew appears perfectly just, and in accordance with the fact. When an unfortunate insect has entangled itself in the clammy juice of a fresh and before unsullied leaf of sundew, the hairs gradually close upon their victim, and the edges of the leaf itself curl inwards, remaining so, long after their luckless captive has ceased to exist. Slowly unclosing at length, they discover the miserable remains of the poor insect, looking, indeed (to borrow a lively simile from Mr. Waterton and his donkey, Vol. V. p. 679.), like "misery steeped in vinegar." The leaf itself does not appear to come off without detriment from the struggle, as it loses much of its healthful appearance, which it is some time ere it completely resumes. I have witnessed, with some surprise, a fly, nearly resembling in size and form the common housefly, captured by one of these little leaves, and held fast until the relaxing hairs disclosed a slimy and blackened thing, bearing small likeness to the creature they had imprisoned.-C. P. Surrey, Oct. 4. 1832.

The Leaves of Drósera are devoid of Irritability. I have frequently examined the leaves of Drósera, and am convinced that, as J. D. suggests (Vol. V. p. 491.), they do not possess any irritability; but that the appearance of it is caused by the fly's drawing towards it, in its struggles, the hairs and edges of the leaf, by means of their viscous matter, by which it is caught. -W. C. Trevelyan. Wallington, Newcastle upon Tyne, Sept. 22. 1832.

The Flowers of Drósera rotundifolia expanded. (Vol. V. p. 110. 758.)-To J. E. L. my thanks are due for his kind attention (Vol. V. p. 758.) to my question (Vol. V. p. 110.) concerning the opening of the sundew flowers; and I have pleasure in being able now to corroborate his observations, as well as those of Linnæus, by my own, unworthy though I feel them to be placed in such company. Early in the summer of the present year, before the sundew yet showed its little scape of flowers, I transferred several plants, surrounded by their native Sphagnum, into a flower-pot; and, in order to observe them constantly, and at all hours, placed them at my chamber window. The window had a south-eastern aspect; and one morning, between the hours of eight and nine, when the sun shone forth clearly and steadily, I was rewarded by the sight of an expanded blossom. Before twelve o'clock the flower closed, and it never opened again. Afterwards, at the same hour, and on similar brilliant mornings, other flowers unclosed, throwing widely open their little petals, as if in enjoyment of the sunshine; but never more than one or two blossoms opened at one time on the same raceme; and never did a flower, once closed, ever again unfurl itself. To me it appeared, that if a flower was ready to bloom, and was not then exposed to the influence of a powerful sun, the work of nature was carried on without its expansion, as it followed the example of those flowers that had opened and closed in assuming an erect position; but whether, in such a case, the seeds attained perfection, I cannot pretend to determine. For the sake of clearness, I may add that the portion of the cluster which bears the unexpanded blossoms droops or is revolute; and that the flowers are erected, as they are successively expanded, and with them the stalk of the cluster itself, in the manner of a circinate inflorescence.-C. P. Surrey, Oct. 4. 1832.

The Identity or Distinctness of Anagállis arvensis L. and A. cærulea Schreber, as Species (Vol. V. p. 493., and in previous pages there indicated). I think the experiments on this subject by no means satisfactory, as sufficient care does not seem to have been taken to prevent the possibility of any seeds being previously in the mould in which the seeds on trial have been sown. Here A. arvénsis is common, but A.

cærulea is never seen, except occasionally on the ballast hills on the banks of the Tyne, whither it has been imported. Let the experiments be repeated with proper precautions, and with seeds of each of the plants, and I suspect it will be found that they are decidedly distinct species. W. C. Trevelyan. Wallington, Newcastle upon Tyne, Sept. 22. 1832.

Respecting Anagállis arvensis and cærulea I may remark, that I have never met with any other kind in this neighbourhood [near Hazlemere, Surrey], but A. arvénsis; nor, I think, with this in any situation, but where the soil was a stiff clay. Had I any of the seeds of A. cærulea, I would try them in the same soil; and if the plants which might spring from them bore blue flowers, would it not seem that the species must be distinct? if red, that to soil they owe their change of appearance? But, perhaps, even then, I might be deceived by the seeds of A. cærulea never springing up, and those of the scarlet doing so spontaneously.-C. P. Surrey, June 7. 1832.

Specific Distinctness of Anagállis arvensis and cærulea. — Sir, Alluding, on a former occasion (Vol. IV. p. 79.), to Professor Henslow's paper "on the specific identity of Anagállis arvensis and carùlea" (Vol. III. p. 537.), I stated that I had introduced the blue variety into the garden, where it propagated itself by seed for many years, and at length degenerated into the common sort; at least the blue ceased to make its appearance, while the red came up copiously. I do not recollect the exact time when the blue disappeared from my garden; but it must be, at the very least, three or four years ago, and I think more. This year, however, in the same bed where it formerly grew, many plants of the blue variety have come up again; as many, I think, as of the red. It is not probable that the seed of Anagállis cœrùlea should have been accidentally introduced into the garden from its native habitat, because it is not met with, at least to my knowledge, in this neighbourhood; the nearest place where I have observed it, Bidford, being between twenty and thirty miles distant. We must either suppose, therefore, that the seed of the blue pimpernel had been lying for years dormant and inactive in the soil of the garden (which, we know, is no unusual occurrence), or else, that the blue specimens which have appeared this season must have been the produce of the common or red sort; thus proving, in the latter case, the one to be only a variety of the other. The above facts may not be very important, as I am aware that nothing like any certain inference can be drawn from them. Such as they are, however, I have put them on record, chiefly in consequence of seeing another communication from Professor Henslow on

this subject, in Vol. V. p. 493., and agreeing with that gentleman, that "there is, perhaps, no question in botany, which, at this moment, it is more desirable to settle on the sure basis of experiment, than the law which limits the variation of species." What botanist has not been sorely perplexed in deciding satisfactorily whether this or that plant is a variety of some other, or a distinct species? And, I may add, what strange work has been sometimes made by splitting species ad infinitum! Facts and remarks, apparently the most trifling, often serve to throw light on a difficult question; and this circumstance I beg to plead as my apology for troubling you and your readers with the present communication. Yours, -B. Coventry, June 14.

Singular Subsidence in the Chalk. (Vol. V. p. 446.) Mr. Moggridge of Woodfield has published, in Vol. V. p. 446., a "singular instance of subsidence portrayed" in an "annexed sketch," which he states himself to "have become acquainted with during his late researches in France." His researches in France must indeed be late, and almost as singular as the instance portrayed; for the plate is copied, and with the slightest possible variation, from the original, in Cuvier and Brongniart's Description Géologique des Environs de Paris, published so early as 1822. The plate in that work is pl. 1. fig. 3. The "explanations" are translated from p. 327. of the text, but incorrectly, as I beg to show. The bed marked c*, in Mr. Moggridge's "sketch," and c in Cuvier's, is not a "calcareous marl, impure, but friable,” which is nonsense; but a "marly chalk, that is impure and friable;" the bed d (D), not "chalk, compact and in small fragments, wrapped in yellow clay," but "altered fragmentary chalk, or in small almond-like masses, united or surrounded by yellow clay;" e (E), not "a stratum of compact marl, approaching chalk, in large masses," but " a bed composed of great masses of marly chalk;" ƒ(F), not "chalk with its ordinary accompaniment of flints," but "common white chalk, with its beds of kidney-shaped flints." These corrections are positively necessary to the truth of the facts stated; for, to say nothing of the difference between "calcareous marl" and marly chalk," or of "compact chalk and fragmentary chalk,' or of "compact marl approaching chalk" and "masses of marly chalk," it is quite clear that Mr. Moggridge does not understand the nature of the beds described. The word "ordinaire," by him Englished into "ordinary," in connection with the flints, instead of being translated common, as

66

*The small letter refers to Mr. Moggridge's sketch; the large letter to M. Cuvier's.