Report

J/ BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLU
| AND SOCIETY OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

| REPORT FOR. 1912
EDITOR AND DISTRIBUTOR,

JOHN CoRR Vos Re:
VOL. Ill. PART. IV.

PUBLISHED BY .R. BLACKWELL,
BROAD STREET, OXFORD.

August 1913.

PRICE 3s 6p.

¥

BN ve}

Prien .
AIMS

a ie ;

sy ee Me
a8

THE

BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB
AND SOCIETY OF THE BRITISH ISLES

MOE. ii. PAR PN.

MEPORT FOR 1912

BY THE

EHIOKLAND, DISTRIBUTOR,

JOHN CRYER.

The Subscription, 7s 6d per annum, and Non-Contributing Members’ Sub-
scription of 5s per annum, should be paid to the Treasurer and Secretary,

G. CLARIDGE DRUCE,

YARDLEY LODGE,

9 CRICK ROAD, OXFORD.

Parcels for 1913 should be sent post paid, on or before 1st December 1913, to
A. BRUCE JACKSON, NorTHBROOK, 3 THE AVENUE, KEW GARDENS.

PRINTED BY T. BUNCLE & Co., ARBROATH.

August 1913.

REPORT FOR 1912. 223

mePOnL OF THE DISTRIBUTOR FORK 1912.

THE sheets of specimens sent this year reached the unprecedented
total of 8,656, being an increase of 60 % on the number submitted
last year. The Distributor was thus able to send out good return-
parcels to every Contributor, and from the acknowledgments received
they proved very acceptable.

Most of the plants were very carefully prepared. A few might
have been rejected without any loss. Fifty-eight Orders were
represented, the plants being of general interest, and no Order received
undue attention. The new members’ contributions were good in
quantity, quality, and interest.

The thanks of the Club are due to the following botanists who
have very kindly assisted with notes :—Mrs E. 8. Gregory, Mr W.
Barclay, Mr A. Bennett, Dr C. Bucknall, Dr E. Drabble, Mr J.
Groves, Prof. E. Hackel, Mr A. Henry, Pfarrer Kiikenthal, Dr
Lindman, Rev. E. F. Linton, Dr J. Murr, Dr Ostenfeld,
Mr W. H. Pugsley, Dr Thellung, and the Rev. W. Moyle Rogers,
as well as to several members of the Club. My personal thanks
are due to Mr Wm. Copley, B.A., for his valuable help during the
distribution of the return-parcels.

JOHN CRYER,
Edutor of the Report and
Distributor for the Club, 1912.
182 BrapFrorp Roap,
SHIPLEY, YORKSHIRE,
28th March 1913.

224 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

LIST OF PARCELS RECEIVED.

Adamson, R. S., B.A.

Bailey, Charles, M.Sc., 7.0.8.
Barton, W. C. : oa
Bickham, S. H., /.L.S.

Britton, C. KE.

Brown, G. C. ae

Comber, John, J.P.

Compton, R. H., M.A. ae
Corstorphine, Mr and Mrs R. H.
Cowan, M ‘Taggart, jun.

Cryer, John ... oa

Cumming, L., M.A. nae
Druce, G. Claridge, MW. A., P.LS., Pe
Foord-Kelcey, Mrs E. foe
Hayward, Miss Ida, F. L.8.
Horwood, A. R.

Jackson, A. Bruce

Johnston, Henry Halcro, Col.
Little, J. E., M.A.

Lumb, D. a sac ree =
Marshall, Rev. E. S., W.A., F.L.S.
Melvill, J. Cosmo, M.A., M.Sc., F.L.S.
Riddelsdell, Rev. H. J., M.A.
Salmon, C. E, “.L.S8.

Shoolbred, W. A., M.R.C.S., PLS.
Travis, W. G.

Trower, Miss Alice ...

Vigurs, C. C., M.D. :
Waterfall, Charles, F.L.S.
Webster, Alfred

Wheldon, J. A., LS.

White, J. W., #.L.S. ee a)
Wilson, A., F.L.S , F.R.Met.8.
Wolley-Dod, A. H., Major

Total,

No. of
Specimens.

o4
21
475
350
191
460
318
46

REPORT FoR 1912. 225

Thalictrum majus, Crantz. Shores of Loch Rannoch, Perth, Aug.
1912.—G. C. Druce. “Correct, I believe; foliage large, peduncles
up to two inches long.” ——E. 8. MarsHatt.

Myosurus minimus, L. Gravelly fields, St Ippollitts, near Hitchin,
Herts, April and May 1912.—J. E. Lirrze.

Ranunculus flabellatus, Desf., var. europaeus, Nyman. Origin, St
Aubin’s, Jersey; cult., Ledbury, May 31, 1912.—S. H. Bickuam.
“‘ Beautiful specimens.” —J. CRYER.

Ranunculus acris, L. Seedlings. Garden, Wembley, in stiff clay
soil, v.-c. 21, May 12, 1912.—A. B. Jackson.

Ranunculus reptans, L. Damp, sandy, and gravelly margins of
Loch Leven, Kinross. Here it varied considerably in size, but could
be distinguished from &. Flammula, which grew with it, by its smaller
flowers of a different tint of yellow, and usually by its arcuate creep-
ing growth. In one case either a hybrid with Flammula or a condi-
tion caused by growing among herbage was observed, Aug. 1912.—
G. C. Druce.

Ranunculus ophioglossifolius, Vill. Near Cheltenham in some
quantity over a very limited area. Kindly shown to me by Mr J.
Fletcher and Mr Montgomery. It was known in this vicinity nearly
50 years ago. The specimens are a little over as I wanted to obtain
it in fruit. The plant is quite distinct from &. Flammula, not only
by the achenes being granulate, but by the smaller flowers, and larger
leaves of a different outline and texture.—G. C. Drucr. ‘The
tubercled carpels are well shown in my specimens; they are very
acceptable.” —E. 8. MarsHAtt.

Ranunculus ophioglossifolius, Vill. Near Cheltenham, v.-c. 33,
June 1912. See Jowrn. Bot. 1912, p. 316. In good quantity over a
very limited area. Bears fruit generously. It is remarkable that it
does not spread to other localities. It has been known in this spot
for over 20 years. Driesa bad colour. The light green of this species
easily distinguishes it from A&. /lammula, though I saw one specimen
as dark as the latter species—H. J. RippELspELL “Fine speci-
mens.”—J. CRYER.

Ranunculus trichophyllus, Chaix, forma. [Ref. No. 11.] Pond,
Peldon, Essex N., May 14, 1912. This may, I think, safely be re-
ferred to A. trichophyllus, though luxuriant. It much resembles the
smaller form from Langenhoe marshes, and like it grows in company
with &. heterophyllus.—G. C. Brown. ‘“ Leaves slender, collapsing ;

226 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

carpels inflated at the end; style straight. All these characters
favour Rk. Drowetii.”.—E. S. Marsnaui. ‘Characteristic. The
collapsing or non-collapsing of the leaves depends upon the mineral
contents of the water.”—J. A. WuHeELpon. “ Yes; trichophyllus.”—
J. GROVES.

Ranunculus trichophyllus, Chaix, forma terrestris. On mud by
the stream near Brockenhurst, S. Hants, June 1912.—G. C.
Druce. ‘“ Another terrestrial state. There is only one decent
peduncle in these specimens and that is long and weak, unlike that of
normal trichophyllus.” —J. GROVES.

Ranunculus heterophyllus, Weber, forma terrestris. [Ref. No. 4809. |
Near Cheltenham, Gloster W., June 1912. Growing on mud, the
type was in the pond.—G. C. Drucre. “Possibly, but why ~
collect these wretched terrestrial states and not the normal aquatic
plant ?”—J. GRovEs.

Ranunculus heterophyllus, Weber. [Ref. No. 7612.] Twinstead,
Essex N., May 1912.—G. C. Drucr. ‘“ Yes.”—J. GRovEs.

Ranunculus heterophyllus, Weber, forma. Pond, Peldon, Essex N.,
v.-c. 19, May 14, 1912. [Ref. No. 12.] Growing intermixed in
same pond with Ref. No. 11.—G.C. Brown. ‘“Yes.”—J.A.WHELDON.
“Yes ; a form with glabrous carpels.” J. GROvVEs.

Ranunculus heterophyllus, Weber, forma or var. Pool in field,
near Little, Stanney, The Wirral, Cheshire, v.-c. 58, May 11, 1912.—
C. WATERFALL. ‘ Yes ; typical, but gathered early.” E. 8. MarsHatt.
“This is Batrachium diversifolium, Hiern = R. Godronii, Gren.” —J. A.
Wuetpon. “Yes; I should say a weak form of &. heterophyllus.
One would like to know if it were crowded together, which might
account for its tenuity.”—J. GROVEs.

Ranunculus peltatus, Schrank. [Ref. No. 6602.] Twinstead,
Essex N., May 1912.—G. C. Druce. “Yes; but too young: no fruit.”
—J. GROVES.

Ranunculus peltatus, Schrank. [Ref. No. 10.] Shallow pond,
Langham, Essex N., v.-c. 19, May 5, 1912.—G. C. Brown. “ Yes.”—
J. GROVES.

Ranunculus peltatus, Schrank. x ? [Ref. No. 13.] Pond, Weeley,
Essex N., v.-c. 19, May 16, 1912. I think there is little doubt of its
hybrid origin, though I believe no other species occurs in the pond.
—G. C. Brown. “Very likely &. heterophyllus x peltatus ; general

REPORT FOR 1912. Wong

appearance of peltatus, but the submerged leaf-segments are capillary
and collapsing, and the rather small flowers indicate a heterophyllus—
parentage. It should be collected again two or three weeks later.”—
K. 8S. MarsHatu. ‘“ My specimen is not a good one, but there appears
to be a suggestion of heterophyllus.”—G. C. Drucr. ‘“ The rather fat
stem and the undeveloped carpels point to hybridity, in which case no
doubt &. peltatus is one parent, but there is not sufficient evidence by
which to suggest the other. I think Batrachian hybrids must be
made out on the spot.”—J. GRovEs.

Ranunculus wpeltatus, Schrank, var. d. penicillatus, Dum.
Cuxham, Oxford, June 1912.—G. C. Drucse. ‘ Not in the least like
B. penicillatum, Dumort., which has ‘feuilles submergées flasques a
segments allongées et se réunissent en pinceau horsdel’eau.’ I should
not refer Mr Druce’s plant to &. peltatus but should like to see fruit
before expressing a definite opinion. There is no information as to
habitat but I presume it occurs in running water.”—J. Groves. “I
am in considerable doubt about this plant and will collect it again.” —
G. C. DRuce.

Ranunculus Hilton, H. & J. Groves. Abundant in a small pool
on border of Copthorne Common, Sussex E., v.-c. 14, April 1912. J.
ComsBrer. ‘“ Doubtless, &. Lenormandi x peltatus.”—H. 8. MARSHALL.
“Yes; excellent specimens.”—J. GROVES.

Ranunculus hederaceus, L., var. omiophyllus, Ten. Floating in
about 2 ft. of water, ditch near Mayford, Surrey, v.-c. 17, April 1912.
—J. Comper. ‘A state, rather than a good variety.”—E. 8. Mar-
SHALL. ‘‘ The floating state of 2. hederaceus which goes by this name.
Mr Hiern describes his form homeophyllus as having the style termi-
nal and that of hederwfolius as lateral, but the outline of the carpels
and the direction of the styles vary considerably in the same head.”—
J. GROVES.

Caltha palustris, L., forma. Boggy ground, Penyfae Common,
Bridgend, v.-c. 41, May 1912. I do not think it is one of our named
varieties, and indeed it may only be a form, though local conditions
afford no good reason for the reduction in size, etc.—H. J. RIDDELs-
DELL.

Actea spicata, L. Amongst limestone rocks near Ribblehead,
altitude 1000 ft., v.-c. 64, May 25, 1912. In fair abundance.—J.
ORYER.

Papaver Rheas, L., forma. [Ref. No. 795.| Banstead, Surrey,
July 28, 1912. Probably identical with the Poppy, from the same

228 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

neighbourhood, that I sent to the Club last year, and that was con-
sidered by those who commented upon it to be very probably Papaver
dubium x Rheas. As I do not see, apart from the form of the
capsule, very strong evidence of P. dubvum, I prefer to regard my
plant as a form of aggregate P. Rheas, perhaps worth distinguishing
as a variety or sub-species. I believe it to be well spread in Surrey,
and possess a similar plant collected at Chilworth in 1895. All the
field poppies (except &. Lecogiz) grew with it, P. Rheas var. strigosum
included. After paying a good deal of attention to poppies, I am
under the impression that P Ahwas, as restricted by Rouy et
Foucaud, 7. de France, i1., p. 154, is an uncommon plant. These
examples were furnished by one luxuriant plant.—C. E. Brirron.
‘‘Good ripe seed in these examples rather negatives the idea of
hybridity. I hope to grow them. The capsules in my example last
year were apparently sterile.”—J. A. WHELDON.

Papaver Rheas, L., var. strigosum, Boenn. Kimble, Bucks,
July 1912. Growing amongst P. Rhwasand dubiwm. The petals were
very dark and striate. I have made my specimens very poor in my
efforts to eke out ten sheets.—F. L. Foorp-Ketcey. “Mr H. N.
Dixon (Journ. Bot. 1892, 309) sowed seeds of what he thought was
strigosum, and out of ten plants only two had appressed hairs; yet
Fedde, in his Monograph (Pflanz. |.c.) makes strigosum a distinct
species separated by nineteen others from P. Ahwas, and having seven
varieties. Is our British strigoswm identical with the continental
one, or could the strigosum of Mr. Dixon’s be a hybrid of dubiwm ?
This plant shows no signs of a dubiwm parentage.”—G. C. Druce.

Papaver Rhoas, L., var. c. Pryorw, Druce. Cornfields, Avebury,
Wilts N., v.-c. 7, June 9, 1912.—W. C. Barton. ‘“ Yes; and this is
an earlier name than var. erythrotrichum, Fedde in Engl. Pflanz.,
295, 1909, which is not the same plant.”—-G. C. Drucr. “ Hairs
much fewer, shorter, and paler than in the most marked examples of
the variety, but I suppose coming under it, as I think Mr Druce
applies the name to any plant with the hairs tinyed with crimson.”—
J. A. WHELDON.

Papaver Lecoqu, Lamotte. Plentiful on chalk soil, Kimble, Bucks,
June 1912. _ This species is much commoner in this neighbour-
hood (especially in our garden and on the railway banks) than
P. dubsum, L.—F. L. Foorp-KE.cey.

Hypecoum pendulum, L. Alien. On waste ground near Wake-
field, v.-c. 60, Aug. 16, 1912.—This interesting alien has made its
appearance every year since 1902. This year there were more plants
than at any previous year. No doubt out-thrown from barges carry-

REPORT FOR 1912. 229

ing grain.—J. Cryer. “This is H. grandiflorum, Benth., teste
Dr Tuetiune, which he considers a sub-species.”—G. C. Drucs.

Capnoides (Corydalis) claviculata, Druce. Growing plentifully
over stones at the British Camp near Galashiels, v.-c. 79, Sep. 1912.—
I. M Haywarp. “Yes, this is Corydalis claviculata, DC.”—H. W.
Puestey. ‘Yes; and a new county record for Selkirk.”—G. C.
DRuce.

Fumaria purpurea, Pugsley. Gravel pit, Meole Brace, Salop,
v.c. 40, Sept. 1912.—J. C. MEtviLt. “ Correct.”—H. W.
PUGSLEY.

Fumaria Borei, Jord. [Ref. No. 4818.] Hinton, S. Hants,
June 1912.—G. C. Druce. “Correct, only one sheet seen.”—H. W.,
PUGSLEY.

Fumaria Borei, Jord., var. verna, Clavaud. [Ref. No. 341].
Welland, v.-c. 37, April 18, 1912. Coll. R. F. Townprow ; Comm.
S. H. Bicknam. “This variety is reduced to a form rubens in
Fumaria in Britain, pp. 19—26. Mr Bickham’s plant may I think
be so named, but the characters are much less marked than in some
examples I have seen.” ——H. W. Puas.ey.

Fumaria Borei, Jord., var. britannica, Pugsley. Arable land,
Crackington, North Cornwall, Sept. 13, 1912.—J. W. Waits. Mr
White’s specimen shows a resemblance to var. britannica in its small
flowers (for so well grown a plant) and its small fruits ; but its habit
is too robust for the variety and its peduncles too straight and stout.
I therefore consider it should simply remain under Bore: type.—H.
W. PUGSLEY.

Fumaria Bore, Jord., var. britannica, Pugsley. Vale, Guernsey,
Aug. 8, 1912.—W. C. Barron. ‘The two sheets that I have seen are
correctly named.”—H. W. Puastey.

Fumaria Bastardt, Bor. (confusa, Jord.). [Ref. No. 3698.] A
weed in cultivated ground, Trefriw, v.-c. 49, Carnarvon, July 8,
1912.—E. S. MarsHatyt. ‘“ Correct.”—-H. W. Puas.ery.

Fumaria Bastards (?), Bor. Trefriw, Carnarvonshire, v.-c. 49, July
8, 1912.—W. A. SHootBreD. “Correct, /. Bastardi, Bor.”—H. W.
PUGSLEY.

Fumaria officinalis, L., forma. Kimble, Bucks, Nov. 23, 1912.
Of remarkably rampant growth, covering a clump of sweet peas, and

230 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

with stems fully 6 feet long, in highly manured ground. I did not
notice it till the middle of October, but as I had been away from home
for a fortnight before that it might have appeared by the beginning of
the month. Early in November it seemed to be cut off by the frost.
Can it be var. scandens!—F. L. Foorp-Ketcry. ‘This is variety
elegans, Pugsley, with deeply coloured flowers, vide Mwmaria in
Britain, pp. 49, 52.” —H. W. Puastey.

Fumaria officinalis, L., var. Wirtgent, Haussk. Waste places,
e.g. Meole gravel pits, between Meole Brace and Bayston Hill, Salop,
v.c. 40, N.C.R., Sept. 1912.—J. C. Metvitt. ‘This as
probably correct but the specimens were unfortunately collected too
late and the flowers and fruits have largely disappeared.” —H. W.
PUGSLEY.

Fumaria micrantha, Lag. [Ref. No. 4817.] (Ff. densiflora, DC. pe
Hinton, S. Hants, June 1912.—G. C. Druck. “ Yes, this is /.
micrantha, Lag.” —H. W. Pues.ey.

Radicula islandica (Oeder Fl. Danica, p. 8, t. 409) forma nana
(R. palustris, Moench Meth, p. 263, 1794). Loch Leven shores,
Kinross, Aug. 1912.—G. C. Druce.

Draba muralis, L. In great abundance on the road-side near
Miller’s Dale Station, Derby, v.-c. 57, May 27, 1912.—J. Crymr.

Erophila majuscula, Jord. Fields near the sand dunes, Ainsdale,
S. Lanes., v.-c. 59, April 1912.—J. A. Wuetpon. “TI think not;
E. majuscula should have veined petals, and the fruit will hardly do
for that. One of my specimens has long, narrow pods, and is £&.
stenocarpa, Jord.; the other I should refer to #. verna (vulgaris DC.).”
—E. 8. MarsHatu. ‘“ Stenocarpa, I think.”—G. C. Drucs.

Erophila verna (?), Meyer, var. stenocarpa, Jord. Above Peebles,
v.-c. 78, May 1912.—M‘T. Cowan, jun.

Cochlearia danica, L. Carboniferous limestone rocks, Puffin Island,
Anglesea, v.-c. 52, May 18, 1912.—C. WaTERFALL.

Cochlearia danica, L., microphylline form. Walton, S. Lancs.,
v.c. 59. Flowers, April ; leaves, November 1912. This is the plant
referred to in the Report, 1893, p. 401; 1894, p. 464; 1895, p. 469;
and 1906, p. 210.—J. A. WHetpon. “I have gathered the same thing
on Darlstone Head, near Swanage, Dorset, and regard it as a state (of
dry, exposed grounds). A few years ago, in S.W. Somerset, this
species was in flower on September 30.”—E. 8S. MarsHa.t.

REPORT FOR 1912. 231

Cochlearia anglica, Iu. Bank of R. Dee (tidal), known as ‘“ Navi-
gation Cop,” Flintshire, v.-c. 51, May 20, 1911, and May 7, 1912.—
C. WATERFALL.

Sisymbrium altissemum, L. = 8. pannonicum, Jacq. Upon a recent
visit to St. Anne’s-on-the-Sea, West Lancashire, I noticed, July 19,
1912, a considerable extension of the area occupied by this plant.
Ten years ago it was for the most part confined to the banks of the
railway bridge over St. Thomas’s Road, but it is now the predominant
plant in the district between Blackpool and Lytham, giving a con-
spicuous colour to the vegetation. It was particularly abundant about
the Free Library, St. Anne’s. During the same period great changes
have taken place in the vegetation of the sand dunes on the Lanca-
shire coast, due to the construction of new roads, embankments, and
drainage. Ten years ago Ambrosia artemisifolia, L., covered several
acres of ground in St Andrew’s Road, South, St Thomas’s Road,
Orchard Road, and neighbourhood, now covered by new roads and
houses. This species has extended to fresh sites in Fairhaven Road,
Hornby Road, in the rear of the Free Library, and to other sites
on the sandhills. One old colony off Beech Road still survives.—
C. BaILey.

Camelina sativa, Crantz. Fields of clover near Cothill, Berks,
June 1912. Also seen at Bayswater, Oxford, Aug. 1912.—G. C.
Drucn. ‘ Yes.”—A. THELLUNG.

Brassica monensis, Huds. Duddon Estuary, Askham, v.-c. 69,
Aug. 14, 1912. A luxuriant colony was at the top of an extremely
steep and slippery bank, a place having all the appearance of being
inaccessible to animals.—D. Lump. ‘“ Yes; and now removes the
query against it for 69 in Top. Bot.”—G. C. DRuce.

Brassica Cheiranthus, Vill. Par Sands, East Cornwall, v.-c. 2,
July 1, 1912. The leaves and lower part of the stem are not as
hispid as one might expect from the books. As Mr Davey remarks in
his Flora, it has all the appearance of a native at Par, but in the
Lond. Cat. it is credited to the Channel Islands only.—C. C. Vicurs.

Brassica (1) Hrucastrum, Vill. Pods and seeds. [Ref. No. 0.]
These were gathered on the railway side, at Askham-in-Furness, and on
the shore at Greenodd. Can any member suggest any plants which
have similar sub-spherical reticulated seeds !—D. Lump.

Capsella Bursa-pastoris, Medic., var. Aberdare, v.-c. 41, Sep. 1912.
Capsules narrowish, more deeply cleft than usual ; style much shorter
than notch. Is thisa named var. ’—H. J. RippELsDELL. ‘This comes
nearest to the var. brachycarpa, Mott.”—G. C. Drucke.

Meg THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

Lepidium ruderale, L. Abundantly in waste ground near a farm-
yard at Keyhaven, 8S. Hants, July 26, 1912.—J. C. Metviit.
“ Correct.”—J. Cryer and A. THELLUNG. .

Reseda ’ Eastfield, Rugby, July 1912. <A casual single plant
which appeared in my garden here. The plant differs in character
from our native Resedae, and has produced no fertile capsules. There
are on the sheets a number of specimens left on the plant till Sept. 20
on the chance of maturing fruit, but none appeared. The first flowers
have a very faint odour of mignonette. Ifa hybrid it is difficult to
guess its origin, as neither &. lutea nor &. Luteola occurs within
several miles.—L. Cummine. “ &. lutea.”—J. A. WHELDON and A.
THELLUNG.

Helianthemum polrfolium, Mill. Limestone crags facing sea,
Daddy Hole Plain, 8. Devon, v.-c. 3, April 17, 1912.—C. WaTERFALL.

Viola sylvestris, Kit., (!) var. punctata, Gregory. Roadside,
Wenvoe, v.-c. 41, April 18,1912. Thisis a form very well known to me,
one which I long supposed to be extreme V. sylvestris, type ; but it
appears (by the description) to be this variety.-—H. J. RIDDELSDELL.
“Yes, var. punctata of V. silvestris, Lam.”—E. 8. Greaory. ‘The
variety dates from Hayward’s Pocket Book, 24, 1909.”—G. C. Drucs.

Viola Riviniana x sylvestris (!) Roadside, Monmouth to Staun-
ton, v.-c. 35, April 24, 1911. Flower shape is that of Aiviniana ;
spur-colour that of sylvestris. But the form, though decidedly inter-
mediate, may not be the hybrid. Both the ‘ parents’ were present.—
H. J. Rippetspeiy. “ Possibly ; though nearest to V. Aiviniana.”—
E. 8S. Grecory. “I cannot see any trace of V. sylvestris in my two
examples ; the foliage, calyx-appendages, and spur are all character-
istic of V. Aiviniana.”— HE. 8S. MaRsHALL.

Viola Riviniana, Reichb., var. flavicornis, Forster. Damp turf,
Tiptree Heath, Essex N., v.-c. 19, May 9, 1912. Identified as above
by Dr Gilbert (of Tunbridge Wells) in 1910.—G. C. Brown. ‘‘No;
the shape of leaves and stipules only sparsely fringed, point to V.
canina, var. ericetorum (V. flavicornis, Smith, in part).”—E. 8. GREGORY.

V. Riviniana, Reichb., forma minor. St. Lythan’s Down, v.-c. 41,
April 19, 1912.—H. J. RippeuspEety. ‘“ Yes.”—-E. 8. Grecory.
“Right, I think; the rather large flowers are against its being var.
diversa, Gregory.” —E. S. MarsHatt.

Viola canina, L. Wood at 400 feet, Tidenham, v.-c. 34, May 9,
1912, It also grows on the chase, in open ground, at 600 feet,—

REPORT FoR 1912. 233

H. J. Rippetspety. “This is probably the var. pusilla, Bab. of
V. canina, L. The plant should be watched, and earlier and later
examples taken.” —E. 8. Grecory. “To those who wish to cite a
definite name for this plant V. canana, Hayne, is certainly correct.
The figure is good, and Hayne says Schrader intended to describe
it under the name ericetorwm, an intention he never fulfilled, so
that it is straining citation to write V. ericetorum, Schrad., for a
combination he never made. We may quite safely write V. canina, L.
emend. Hayne, which is much earlier than some other names which
have been suggested. The habitat for V. canina, ‘in apricis,’ cited
by Linnaeus, eliminates the woodland species JV. sylvestris and
Riviniana, which Linnaeus, so far as synonymy goes, may have
aggregated with this plant.”—G. C. Druce.

Viola canina x stagnina. [Ref. No. 3753.] Woodwalton Fen,
Hunts, v.-c. 29, June 5, 1912. Named on the spot by Mrs E. BS.
Gregory. The stagnina—parentage was very clear ; perhaps the other
factor is the var. crassifolia of V. canina, which seems to be the pre-
vailing form in this locality. A very handsome hybrid.—E. 8. Mar-
SHALL. ‘ Evidently an intermediate or hybrid between V. canina and
V. stagnina.”—K. 8S. GREGorY.

V. herta, L., (*) var. propera, Gillot. Puckham Wood, v.-c. 33,
April 10, 1912. A form which may belong to inconcinna, Briq.,
but seems nearer propera. I found also a small quantity of good
inconcinna.—H. J. RIDDELSDELL. ‘‘ We certainly have here the small
leaves, large flowers with broad sepals characteristic of var. propera,
but the hranched underground stem denotes some admixture of
V. odorata.” —K. 8. Gregory. “TI think this may pass, the sepals of
my own specimens are about 2mm. wide.”—G. C. DRucE.

Viola epipsila, Ledeb. Quintrell Downs, near Newquay, West
Cornwall, v.-c. 1, May and July 1912. This will probably be found
to be as common in Cornwall as I’. palustris. I have found it in both
vice-counties.—C. C. Vicurs. ‘ Correct.”—E. 8S. Greeory. “ Yes;
I so named the fresh specimens sent me by Dr Vigurs.”——G. C. Dructz.

Viola epipsila, Ledeb. [Ref. No. 4795.] Burghfield, Berks, May
1912. Flowers to supplement the fruiting plants sent last year.
In this stage the plants are practically glabrous, and I was afraid the
character which chiefly separates it from palustris had broken down,
but I brought a few roots home and placed them in a cool house,
when within a month the later leaves had the veins and peduncles
hairy. I may add that I have also found JV. epipsila near Omagh,
in Co. Tyrone, and near Silchester, in N. Hants. Only V. palustris
was noticed in Forfar, Perth E. and M., Dumfries, Linlithgow,

234 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

Kirkeudbright and Wigton.—G. C. Drucr. ‘“ When sent to me
from Burghfield in July 1911, this plant fulfilled all requisite
characters of V. epipsila.”—E. 8. GreGory.

Viola arvensis, Murr., var.——? Branston, Leics., v.-c. 55,
Aug. 1912.—A. R. Horwoop.

Viola ? Arable land, and also among rocky debris at
summit of Sharpstones Hill, near Shrewsbury, v.-c. 40, Sept. 8, 1912.
—J.C. Metvity. ‘ My specimen is not perfect, but as far as I can
judge it is V. swbtilis.,—E. DRABBLE.

Viola ? [Reference No. 4940.] Frilford, Berks, in dry
sandy soil, July 1912.—G. C. Druce. ‘“V. Déséylisei, Jord.”—
EK. DRaABBuLe.

Viola obtusifolia, Jord. Kenilworth, Warwickshire, v.-c. 38,
Aug. 1912, and from garden ground, Lytham, W. Lancs., v.-c. 60,
Sept. 1912.—H. J. and J. A. WHELpon. “ Yes.” —E. DRraBBLe.

Viola [Ref. No. 4782.] Oxford, June 1912.—G. C. Drucz.
“ V. obtusifolia, Jord. ; remarkably fine.”—E. DRABBLE

Viola, near ruralis, Jord. (?) Garden ground, Walton, 8. Lancs.,
v.-c. 59, Aug. 1912.—J. A. Wuetpon. ‘“ Yes ; apparently an over-
grown and not typical V. ruralis, Jord.” -E. DRaBBLE.

Viola ? [Ref. No. 4806.] Crowwell, Oxon, May 1912.—
G. C. Druce. ‘‘ Apparently upgrown V. rwralis.”—E. DRaBBLE.

Viola~-—? [Ref. No. 5120.| Near Lacey Green, Sept. 1912.—
G. C. Druce. ‘“ V. contempta, Jord.”—E. DRABBLE.

Viola arvensis, Murr., var.——! Knipton, Leicestershire, v.-c. 55,
Aug. 22, 1912.—A. R. Horwoop. ‘“V. arvatica, Jord.”—H.
DRABBLE.

Viola——! [Ref. No. 4821.] Moreton Green, Bucks, July 1912.
—G. C. Druce. “ V. arvatica, Jord.”—E. DRABBLE.

Viola——! [Ref. No. 5244.] Sep. 1912. This handsome pansy
was common in turnip fields and also among grass in the parish of
Balgavies, Forfar. Mrs Corstorphine tells me it has a wide area in
the district.—G. C. Druce. “V. lepida, Jord.”—E. S. MarsHatt.
“V. Lejeunwi, Jord. But I have not the whole of a full grown plant.”
—E. DRasBie.

REPORT FoR 1912. 230

Viola lepida, Jord. (?) Rocky limestone woodland near Carnforth,
W. Lanes., v.-c. 60, Sep. 1912. Coll. J. W. Harriry and H. J.
WuHELDOoN ; Comm. J. A. WHELDON. ‘“ Probably right; the perennial
root is not shown in my plant.”—_E. 8. MarsHatu. “Only part of a
plant has been sent, but this appears to be V. Leyewniw, Jord.”—E.
DRABBLE.

Viola Curtisu, Forster, var. Pesneaui, Lloyd and Fouc. Sand-
hills, Walney Island, North Lancashire, v.-c. 69, Sep. 1912.—J. ComBEr.
“Yes.”—E. DRraBBLe.

“Tt must be understood clearly that the determinations of the
pansies refer only to the actual specimens seen. -Gatherings in the past
have frequently been mixtures, and I have often found myself con-
fronted in looking through herbaria with specimens bearing an
Exchange Club determinatiou which certainly was never given for the
plant on the sheet.” —E. DRaABBLE.

Polygala——! Steep stony slope of Cranham Common, Pains-
wick, v.-c. 33, July 1912. Leaves on barren branches remarkably
broad. Perhaps P. calcarea, F. Schultz, which I have not gathered,
however, so Jate in the year as this.—H. J. RippELSDELL. “ P. vul-
garis, forma. My specimen is very imperfect, most of the flowers
having fallen, and the plant appears as if strangled by herbage, but
the leaves are not opposite as in serpyllacea forms.—G. C. Druck
and J. Cryer. “ Material scrappy; I think that it is a straggling,
few-flowered P. serpyllacea, but no fruit is present.”—E. S. MARrsHALL.
“Tt looks like P. vulgaris, but my specimens only boast of one poor
head of flowers, two buds, and no fruit! So what can one say ?”——
C. E. Satmon.

Dianthus deltoides, L. Limestone rocks, near Deganwy Castle,
Carnarvonshire, v.-c. 49, July 9, 1912.—W. A. SHooLBrED. Also
sent from same place by E. 8. MarsHatt.

Silene maritima, With., forma. Chesil Beach, v.-c. 9, July 1912.
A form with pale yellowish calyx, mentioned in Pleydell’s Plora of
Dorset. There are also intermediates there between this and the
ordinary form.—H. J. RIDDELSDELL.

Lychnis Preslw, Sekera. Plant from Tantallon Castle, Hadding-
ton, June 12, 1910.—Miss A. Trowrer. ‘“ Yes; and I think a distinct
species, the occurrence of which in this locality is remarkable. Late
in August I visited the spot and saw a single plant on the edge of
a cornfield. JZ. dioica was abundant in the vicinity, and although
out of flower varied greatly in degrees of pubescence. Perhaps Miss
Trower will grow Preslw from seed. I have a quite glabrous form

236 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

of LZ. alba sent me by Mr Chester from Northants in 1912.”—G. C.
DRUCE.

Cerastiwm tetrandrum, Curt., var. Burry Holm, v.-c. 41, June
1910. On this var. see Report 1910, p. 545. This supply is not quite
so characteristic as the former.—H. J. RippeutspeLy. ‘A form I
think and not a variety of the polymorphic tetrandrum.”—G. C. Drucz.
“This agrees very closely with my authentic sheet of C. subtetrandrum,
Murbeck (apud Baenitz, Herb. Hurop., 1892) in habit, but is con-
siderably more glandular ; the species varies a great deal, and maritime
sands increase the glands.” ——-E. 8. Marsuauu. ‘Typical C. tetrandrum.”
—J. A. WuHeELpon. ‘Capsule short and straight, very unlike that of
var. dunense described in Journ. Bot. 17, 1913. The habit and size
is remarkable, and I have not seen so robust tetrandrum before. There
is a var. majus, Moris Fl. Sard. i., 267, 1837, but I do not know it.”—

C. E. SaALtmon.

Stellaria apetala, Ucria. Sandy places, St Martha’s Hill, Guildford,
Surrey, v.-c. 17, April 1912.—J. Comper. “It exactly matches the
description in Rouy and Foucaud’s Fl. de France, iii., 230, of their
var. minor, of which S. Borwana, Jord., is quoted as a synonym. Our
coast-plant is, as arule, larger and more straggling.” —E. 8. MarsHa.t.

Stellaria neglecta, Weihe, var. wmbrosa, Opiz. Particularly
luxuriant in hedgerows between Meole Brace and Pulley, Salop,
v.c 40, May 1912.—J. C. Menvinn. “My plants have hairy
peduncles and bluntly tubercled seeds.”—G. C. Drucre. ‘Yes; the
plant with glabrous calyx and pedicels, and acutely tubercled seeds,
which Opiz named S. wmbrosa.”—E. 8. MARsHALL.

Arenaria tenuifolia, L., ? var. Wilbury Hill Gravel Pit, near
Hitchin, Herts, June 8, 1912. Seems to differ from the type in
having a glandular calyx, from var. laxa, Jord., in having 10 stamens,
and from var. hybrida, Vill., in its smooth peduncle.—J. E. Lirrus.
“These plants are very similar to those sent from Minchinhampton
Common by Rev. H. J. Riddelsdell in 1909 (see Report 1909, 442),
and my remarks on that gathering apply equally to this. Note that
Boreau considers that hybrida should be glandular in the upper part;
and that the fruiting pedicels should be ‘dressés étalés.’”—C. E.
Satmon. ‘Yes, A. tenuifolia, L., Minuartia tenuifolia, Hiern.” —
A. THELLUNG.

Sagina nodosa, Fenzl, var. monilifera. Askhain Ironworks, v.-c. 69.
Most of these plants were growing in the “rivet-holes” of flattened
boiler-plates, the others in sandy ground. All, save the smallest, were
produced naturally in these extremely draughty places. Very few

REPORT FoR 1912. IT

flowers were produced. Probably, judging from the crowded associa-
tions of very young plants, many fascicles are aided by the parent
plant in their new start in life. The base of the ascending shoot:
becomes covered with sand, or with that and ‘‘slime,” and then most
of the fascicles on it take root. The smallest distributed were pro-
duced separately from the parent, 7.e. from scattered fascicles. On
November 2nd, I was able to send Mr Cryer some rooted fascicles, still
attached to the parent shoots, so that the help given by the parent
is beyond doubt.—D. Lump.

Sagina ciliata, Fries, forma. [Ref. No. 678.] West Barnes
Lane, Merton, Surrey, June 12, 1912. This differs from the usual
form of S. ciliata, Fries, in that the sepals ultimately spread like
those of S. apetala, L., with which species it grew. By the habit,
outer sepals pointed, &c., this plant is S. coliata, Fries, but the sepals,
spreading at length, recalls S. apeta/a, L.—C. HE. Brirron. ‘The
strongly ciliate leaves apparently indicate S. filicauwlis, Jord., but I
have no example for comparison.”—J. A. WHeELpon. “Surely under
apetala and not ciliata by its sepals, &c.”—C. E. Satmon. “ Probably
a form of S. apetala.”—G. C. Druce.

Saga Reuter, Boiss. Sand dunes, Hightown, 8. Lanes., v.-c. 59,
Aug. 1912. A form with very spinose leaves, resembling S. apetala,
var. spinosa, Fenzl. The short pedicels, and calyx not spreading
(until after the capsules dehisce), appear to keep it separate from
that.—J. A. WHELDON.

Spergularia rupestris, Lebel. Rolley, River Gannel, Newquay,
West Cornwall, v.-c. 1, July 2, 1912.—C. C. Vicurs. ‘‘ Yes; Rouy
& Foucaud name it (/7. Fr., i1., 305) Lebeliana, because there is an
earlier S. rupestris, Dietr., but as that is a South American Arenaria
there is no adequate reason for changing Lebel’s original name, even
for his later rupicola.”—G. C. Druce. ‘Of the four plants on my
sheet, two are normal ; the others are lax and straggling, with leaves
twice as long, but the seeds are all alike. Why Rouy went out of
his way to coin a new name (S. Lebeliana) I cannot understand.”—
E.S. MarsHastu. ‘ Yes; our most beautiful species.”—C. E. Satmon.

Spergularia rupestris, Lebel, var. glabrescens, Lebel. Headland,
Newquay, West Cornwall, v.-c. 1, Oct. 1912. On dry cliffs.—C. C.
Vicurs. ‘Although the leaves are glabrescent the rachis is
glandular, but perhaps it may pass.”—G. C. Druce. “TI am glad to
see this variety, which I had never been able to find; but the
specimen is poor.”’—E. 8. Marsuaty. “I suppose so, but my speci-
men is rather fragmentary.” —C. E. Saumon.

238 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

Spergularia marginata, Kittel. Mud flats, Hayling Island, S.
Hants., v.-c. 11, Aug. 1912.—J. ComBer. “ Yes; the S. media, Presl.
In this the peduncles and calyces are glandular.”—-G. C. Drucr. “I
agree.” —C, HE. SALmon.

Spergularia marginata, Kittel. Penpoll Creek, River Gannel,
Newquay, West Cornwall, v.-c. 1, Aug. 22,1912. On wet mud banks.
—C.C. Vicgurs. ‘“ Yes; the typical glabrous plant the older name for
which is S. media, Presl, and of Lebel Revis, p. 25, a trivial which
has, however, been used for other species.” —G. C. Drucz. ‘Yes; a
straggling form of the type.”—E. 8S. Marswaur and C. E. Satmon.

Spergularia salina, Presl. Near Cheviot. River Gannel, New-
quay, West Cornwall, v.-c. 1, June 7, 1912.—C. C. Vieurs. ‘The
seeds are papillate, hence the var. neglecta. Rouy and Foucaud (/7.
Fr.) group the various forms of this polymorphic plant under S.
Dillenti, Lebel Rev. Sperg. p. 27.”—G. C. Druce. “ This is practi-
cally glabrous and seems correctly named, yet it has the obviously
papillate seeds that some authors ascribe to meglectum, Kindb.
Syme distinctly states that his S. neglecta, 6 salina, Presl, should have
‘seeds without papillae,’ and Rouy remarks, under S. salina, Presl,
‘ graines seulement chagrinées.’”—C. E. Saumon.

Spergularia salina, Presl, var. neglecta, Syme. On sandy mud,
Porth, Newquay, West Cornwall, v.-c. 1, May 19, 1912.—C. C.
Vicurs. ‘ Although the pedicels are glandular, the seeds are quite
smooth (not papillose) ; I believe that it comes under the type.”—E.
S. MarsHatu. ‘This seems to agree with the description of the plant
called ‘S. neglecta, a genuina (= Lep. neglectum, Kindb.)’ by Syme
It complies also with Hooker’s idea of the plant (Stwd. F7.). I have
not seen Kindberg’s type or original description and Rouy (and also
Giirke) do not fall in line with our British handbooks as they make
L. neglectum, Kindb. a synonym of S. salina, Presl.”—C. E. Satmon.
“My specimen has papillate seeds, and is therefore neglecta, and Mr
Barton tells me his sheets of both this and the preceeding are
neglecta.” —G. C. DRucE.

Spergularia |diandra, Boiss], var. atheniensis, H. and'8. [Ref.
Nos. 39, 41, 42.] Lerée, Guernsey, Aug. 13, 1912. Mr Druce says
in lit. é quite the same Spergularia as I got in Jersey in 1906, but
in a place now denuded of plants on the foreshore. It is the
Mediterranean atheniensis I well believe, or if not that, a new species,
but it agrees very closely with an authentic specimen that I have
gathered on the Grecian coast. It differs from rubra by its stipules
and in the absence of the central rosette. The fruits are smaller
than in salina.’ Of the three Spergularias I have, numbered 39, 41,

REPORT FOR 1912. 239

42; Mr Druce passed 39 and 41 as atheniensis, and expressed doubt
about 42. I have since compared these forms with the authoritative
No. 590 De Heldreich Herbarium Graecum Normale in British
Museum, and find my 39 agrees very closely in all respects, except
that its growth is more compact and it is less densely and coarsely
glandular-hairy. My 41 differs in growth, size of flower, fruit and
seed, and length of pedicel, and is less glandular-hairy ; the leaves
are scarcely ‘mucronulate’ and the cymes more leafy. Seeds of
De Heldreich No. 590 as above, 15—18:33 mm.; of my No. 39,
14:33 mm. ; of my 41 and 42, 35—42:33 mm. Another sheet in
British Museum, De Heldreich Herb. Gr. Norm., No. 831, Spergularia
campestris, Kindb., has seeds 30—34:33 mm., and to this much of
my No. 41 corresponds closely. (Kindberg, in his Monograph, gives
Lepigonum campestre as synonymous with Spergularia rubra, var.
atheniensis, Heldr. and Sart). I have a series of forms intermediate
between my 39 and 42. For comparison; seeds of Spergularia
salina, Presl, var. c. neglecta, gathered in Guernsey measure
35—50 : 33 mm.—W. C. Barron. ‘Yes, this agrees with the
description of S. atheniensis, Asch., in Rouy’s f7. France.”—C. E.
Satmon. ‘“ Probably all these come under athentensis.”—G. C. DRuce.

Spergularia rubra, Presl Par, v.-c. 2, Aug. 30, 1912. I doubt
this being rwbra, though sent under that name, as the stipules are not
lanceolate and silvery white. My specimen collected there some years
ago by Mr A. O.. Hume is queried also. May it be S. atheniensis 1—
C. C. Vieurs. “I believe Dr Vigurs’ plant to be S. atheniensis.”—
G. C. Drucr. ‘A more densely glandular form (from the very base)
than any I have met with.”—E. S. Marsuaty. “ The shape and colour
of stipules, &c., point to S. atheniensis rather than typical rubra.”
—C. E. Satmon. “Matches very closely No. 39 of Mr Barton’s.”—
J. CRYER.

Claytonia perfoliata, Donn. Abundant near Sibil Hedingham,
Essex N., May 1912. Also seen near Colchester, and in Woolmer
Forest, by the roadside, Hants 8.—G. C. Druct.

Montia. In profusion on a bog on Chailey Common, Sussex,
May 20, 1912. It does not appear to be mentioned in Dr Arnold’s
Sussex Flora.—A. WruxstEer. ‘“ As far as I can see, the seeds agree
in character with those described by W. H. Beeby (Ann Scot. Nat.
Hist., 1909, p. 104) for the plant he called M. fontana, L., ssp. minor,
Gmelin, var. 8 intermedia, Beeby.”—C. E. Saumon.

Montia fontana, L., var. rivularis,Gmel. I have preferred using
the name MV. fontana, L., in accordance with the Lond. Cat. instead
of the arrangement in Report 1908, pp. 331—2, ze. M. verna, Neck.,

240 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

var. rivularis, Gmel. I presume this is synonymous with the Lond.
Cat. var. major, All.’—G. C. Brown. “No; thisis MW. verna, Necker
= M. chondrosperma, Fenzl, var. rwularis (Gmel. p.p.), with the seed of
Beeby’s intermedia. The Linnean species described as WY. fontana in
Sp. Pl., so far as the references in Flora Suecica and Fl. Lapponica go
refer to the plant afterwards named lamprosperma by Chamisso,
which alone occurs in Scandinavia, and is the common plant of
Scotland, and it is the plant of the Linnaean herbarium. Some of the
synonyms added by Linneus in the Sp. Pl. may belong to the more
southern plant. It may be remarked that Gmelin neither describes
his plant as a variety or as a sub-species.”—-G. C. Drucse. “ This is
M. fontana, L., ssp. minor, Gmelin, var. intermedia, Beeby.”—C. E.
SALMON.

Hypericum humifusum, var. b. magnum, Bast. Roadside,
St. Andrews, Guernsey, Aug. 2, 1912. I gathered this variety in all:
parts of the island, but failed to find the type.—W. C. Barron.
“Are the sepals sufficiently serrate for this variety ?”—-G. C. DRucg.

Malva sylvestris, L., var. acutiloba, Celak. Par Harbour, East
Cornwall, v.-c. 2, Oct. 1912. A well-marked variety, upright,
3 to 4 ft. high, leaves three or five lobed with long lobes, flowers
rather smaller than usual.—C. C. Vicgurs.—‘ Yes, I found this at
Par in 1910, and Dr Thellung kindly identified it as Celakovsky’s
acutiloba, which I also gathered at Twyford in Berks in 1890.”—
G. C. Druce.

Geranium molle, L., var. grandiflorum, Vis. Hedge-bank, St
David’s, Fife, v.-c. 85, July 20, 1912.—M‘T. Cowan, jun. “No;
G. pyrenaicum, Burm. fil.”—J. Cryer and G. C. Druce.

Geranvum columbinum, L. Hedge-bank in lane near Colemore,
near Ellesmere Town, Salop, v.-c. 40, July 3, 1912.—C. WarTeERFALL.
“ Yes.”—G. C. Druce.

Geranium Robertianum, L. Seedlings. Cult., Walton, 8. Lancs.,
Aug. 1912.—J. A. WHELDON.

Geranium Robertianum, L., var. Chesil Beach, v.-c. 9, July 17,
1912. In compact roundish plants growing from a translucent yellow-
brown tap root. Flowers small, anthers red, pollen golden. Plant
hairy.—H. J. RippEuspELL. ‘The specimens lack properly dried
flowers. It would appear to be a form of the aggregate purpureum,
since the carpels are glabrous, but with more distant ridges than
those of Mr. White’s plant. It is probably the var. minutiflorum
(Jord. Pugill. 39), since it is too hairy for litorale, and too compact
for intricatum, Gren.”—G. C. Druce.

REPORT FOR 1912. 241

Geranvum purpureum, Vill, var. genuinum, R. and F. Lime-
stone rocks, Leigh Woods, N. Somerset (first noticed there by Dr
C. Moss), June 7, 1912, and Crantock, West Cornwall, June 25, 1912.
These small-flowered forms vary conspicuously from the type, but
it is usually difficult to fit them in with described varieties, and
one feels sorry that they may not be left under an aggregate parvi-
florum. The Leigh Woods plant has the glabrous, deeply wrinkled
carpels of purpureum-genuinum, though in other respects it might
pass for G. minutiflorum, Jord., as understood by the Var botanists.
The Cornish specimens do not exactly correspond, but I hardly think
their characters differ more than might be expected from a more
exposed situation close to the sea.—J. W. Wuirr. ‘“ Yes, the true
plant, with glabrous carpels and lower leaves, small flowers and
yellow anthers.”—G. C. Druce. ‘“ Rouy’s a genuinum, for which he
quotes G. purpurewm, Vill., should, of course, stand as the type.
Plant in good fruit, without flowers; upper part, including calyx,
with many long, slender, gland-tipped hairs ; ripe seeds, dark brown ;
carpels hairy, dull brown (Rouy describes them as ‘rougedtres’ in
his genuonum). If a form of G. purpurewm, which I doubt, the
fruit-character is rather that of y sumile, Rouy (‘carpelles brunatres’).”
—E. 8. MarsHatt.

Erodium cicutarwwm, L’Hérit. [Ref. No. 35.] Sandy hedge-
bank above the marshes, Flixton, Suffolk E, v.-c. 25, Sept. 21, 1912.
—W. C. Barron. ‘Seems very near £. pilosum, var. vestitum,
Clav.”—J. A. WHELDON.

Erodium pilosum, Bor., a. glutinosum, Clav. Autumnal form.
Sand dunes, St Anne’s, West Lanes., v.-c. 60, Sept. 1912; also from
sand dunes, Ainsdale, 8. Lanes., v.-c. 59, June 1912. The late
examples of this plant have a very different appearance, owing to
the long diffuse stems.—J. A. WHELDON.

Erodium cicutarwum, L’Herit., var. c. glandulosum, Bosch. [Ref.
No. 36.] Sandy coast, Grand Havre, Guernsey, Aug. 21, 1912.
Also from Lithou Island, Guernsey, on sand among bracken. [ Ref.
No. 31.] Aug. 13,1912. Also from Headon Hill, Isle of Wight,
v.-c. 10. [Ref. No. 32.] Sept. 1, 1912.—W. C. Barton.

Erodium cicutarvum, L’Hérit. My Guernsey specimen No. 36 is
not ‘densely glandular.’—J. Crysr.

At present our knowledge of the British forms of cicwtarium
is chaotic. Rouy and Foucaud put piloswm, Jord. as var. a. of
EL. bipinnatum, Willd., itself subordinate to the aggregate HH. cicu-
tarium, Aiton, but the plant from St. Anne’s, although glandular,

242 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

does not seem sufficiently so for the var. glandulosum, Bosch. The
small plant from Ainsdale may possibly be referred to it, as might
Mr Barton’s plant from Lihou Island. Those from Headon Hill
and the Grand Mare are less glandular.—G. C. Druck.

Erodium cicutarwum, L’Heérit., var. pompinellifolium (Sibth.) as
a species. [Ref. No. 4819.] Stow Wood, Oxon, Aug. 1912. In
some of the specimens the two upper petals had dark purple spots
as in Sibthorp’s type, which came from the vicinity. He based it
on the Geranium pimpinellaefolio, Ray Syn., 358, 1724. The petals
were sometimes unspotted, even on the same plant.—G. C. Druce.
“From the colour of the stigmas and the glandular sepals, I should
consider Mr Druce’s plant to be #. praetermissum, Jord. The carpel
furrow of #. triviale is said in Bab. Manual to be ‘very faint,’ and
in Corbiére’s Fl. France to be ‘very marked.’ There seems to be
much confusion in naming these plants. According to Corbiere,
E. triviale, Jord., includes #. pallidiforum, HF. Boraeanum, and
EL. parviflorum, and has an eglandular calyx and marked carpel
furrow. £. praetermissum differs chiefly in its glandular calyx and
purple-violet stigmas.”.-—J. A. WHELDON.

Erodium moschatum, L’Heérit., var. !Ref. No. 38.] Sandy coast,
Grand Havre, Guernsey, Aug. 21, 1912. This dwarf plant is
common on the west coast from Grand Havre southwards to Lerée.
Mr Marquand told me that so far as he knew it had been passed over
as Hrodium cicutarvum, of which I send dwarf plants from the same
locality. The petals were exactly similar to those of the normal full-
sized plant growing at Albecq. My Guernsey specimens of Hrodiwm
moschatum do not bear out Babington’s (Manual) distinction
E. cwcutarium, ‘beak hairy’; £. moschatum, ‘beak downy.’
I have found both hairy with little difference. I have not seen an
authentic specimen of var. minor, Rouy and Fouc., but my No. 38
agrees well with their description, and seems probable from the
habitat. In Herb. Brit. Mus. is a similar plant collected by Mr
Marshall, [No. 2924.] April 1, 1905, on limestone rocks, Purn Hill,
Bleadon. He remarks ‘very glandular, not musk-scented, stamens
(apparently) not bidentate at base.—W.C. Barron. ‘ Agrees very
well (by description) with var. minor, Rouy, Fl. de France, iv. 113.” —
KE. 8. MarsHauu. ‘ Possibly the var. minor, Rouy and Fouc., Fl. Fr.,
iv. 113.”—G. C. Druce.

Erodium maritimum, L’Hérit. North coast, Guernsey, Aug. 8,
1912. Also a seedling plant, coast near Mont Cuet, Guernsey,
Aug. 10, 1912.—W. C. Barton. ‘“ Yes.”—-G. C. Druce.

Impatiens Noli-tangere, L. Marrington Dingle, v.-c., 40, July 24,
1912. Coll. Rev. W. Burr, President of the Cotteswold Club. A

REPORT FOR 1912. 243

very difficult plant to dry. In plenty with Inula Helenium, Hesperis,
and Mimulus in a locality which is first mentioned in Johnson’s
Gerarde, 446, where the plant is called Persicaria siliquosa. See
Journ. Bot. 1895, 117 and 376. Mr Butt tells me the flowers bore no
spots; but this seems no sufficient reason for making a variety.—
H. J. RIDDELSDELL.

Impatiens parviflora, DC. Pusey Woods, Berks, June 15, 1912.
Literally as Mr G. C. Druce says in his Plora of Berkshire, 1897,
‘covering acres in Pusey Wood, where it was probably introduced
with buckwheat used for pheasants’ food.’—F. L. Foorp-KEtcry.
“Yes.” —G. C. DRUCE.

Impatiens parviflora, DC. Waste ground, Bank of Aire, altitude
200 ft., Aug. 1912. Has been growing here for sixteen years.—
J. CRYER.

Euonymus europeus, L., with cream-coloured fruit. W. Guildford,
v.-c. 17, Oct. 1912. Coll. Miss Garpren. See Journ. Bot. 377, 1912,
by Miss Armitage, who sent me the specimens now distributed.
Comm. 8. H. Bickuam.

Acer Pseudo-Platanus, L. Seedlings. Millwood, Dalton-in-Furness,
v.-c. 69, Sept. 18, 1912.—D. Lump.

Ulex europaeus, L. Naphill Common, Bucks, Aug. 1912. These
seedlings came up in immense quantities among the ashes from the
extensive fire of the furze last year.—G. C. DRucE.

Medicago falcata. A casual, which I had not noticed previous-
ly at St. Anne’s, West Lancashire, v.-c. 60, occurred on the sandhills
of Devonshire Road, July 13, 1912, and of which I can only send
three examples.—C. Battey. ‘‘ Yes.” A. THELLUNG.

Medicago sylvestris, Fries. Plant brought from Thetford, Suffolk,
v.-c. 26, May 1911.—Miss A. Trower. “ Yes.”—G. C. Druce.

’ Medicago media, Persoon, = M. falcato-sativa, Rehb. Estab-
lished many years on waste ground near Portishead Station, North
Somerset, July-Aug. 1912. I have observed this plant many years
and think it may be a hybrid. It flowers profusely, but produces
fruit in very small quantity. There is but little evidence of MW. sativa,
save perhaps in the form of inflorescence.—J. W. Wuitr. ‘In good
flower, without fruit; matches J/. falcata very well, with no appear.
ance of M. sativa, so it can hardly be IZ. varia, Thomas Martyn =
M, sativa, media, Pers, The flowers are pure, bright yellow.”—E.

244 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

S. MarsHatu. ‘This plant may be, as Mr White suggests, MW. falcata
x sativa, though it cannot be very far from falcata itself, of which it
has a general appearance, excepting the non-falcate pods—however,
yype pods are necessary to show this feature.”—C. E. Satmon. “This
is M. falcata, L. (not M. media, Pers.)”—A. THELLUNG.

Medicago minima, Desr. Sewage tip, near Bradford, v.-c. 64,
July 11,1912. This was the dominant Medicago this past season.
The others present in less abundance being JM. denticulata, Willd.,
also var. aprculata, Willd., IM. arabica, Huds., WM. lappacea, Desr.,
M. laciniata, Mill., and M. tribuloides, Desr. Wool introductions.—
J. Cryer. “Dr THELLUNG suggests comparing it with var. recta
(Desf.), Burnat.”—G. C. Druce.

Medicago laciniata, Mill. Sewage farm, near Bradford, v.-c. 64,
July 11, 1912. In abundance.—-J. Cryer.

Melilotus alba, Desr. Askham Ironworks, v.-c. 69, July 18, 1912.
I am unable to understand why the pods of this plant should be
described as acute and those of arvensis as obtuse. When removed
from the calyx these seem to me to be far more nearly circular in
outline than those of arvensis, and it would seem therefore more
obtuse. —D. Lump.

Melilotus arvensis, Wallr. Askham Ironworks, v.-c. 69, July 18,
1912. These plants were growing in sand which had been burnt -
hundreds of times by molten iron. They reached a height of 7 ft.,
and low down had a diameter of 4 to 5 feet. I think it must have
been the admixture of slag dust that had caused these plants to
flourish so exceedingly. The ‘skeletons’ of the 1911 plants show
that some of them overtopped 8 feet; this seems very remarkable,
seeing that the summer of 1911 was such an abnormally dry one.—
D. Lus.

Trifolium repens, L. Waste ground, Askham, v.-c. 69, Aug. 9,
1912.—D. Lums. ‘Yes, the form with foliaceous calyces called
var. phyllanthum, Seringe, in DC. Prod., ii., 199.”—G. C. Druck.

Lotus hispidus, Desf. Lancresse Common, Guernsey, Aug. 8,
1912.—W. C. Barton.

Astragalus glycyphyllos, L. Wood side, Whatfield, W. Suffolk,
v.-c. 26, June 27, 1912.—G. C. Brown.

Ormithopus pinnatus, Druce. In cart ruts, Lancresse Common,
Guernsey, Aug. 22, 1912.—W. C. Barron.

REPORT FOR 1912. 945

Vicia (2) angustifolia, L. Waste ground, Askham, v.-c. 69, Aug.-
Oct. 1912. The plants from which these pods were gathered have
many of the attributes of Vicia sativa. The seeds, however, are
always black, and so far as I have been able to make out, by open-
ing pods at different stages, no spotted stage is included in their
development. Although named angustifolia, the seeds seem much
less spherical than those of that plant ; they are larger, and the hilum
is not the same. It is to be hoped that some members will cultivate
them and report the results.—D. Lump.

Vicia angustifolia, L., var. ——? On old railway bank near
Hopetown, v.-c. 85, July 1912. I have not met this variety before in
which the flowers are solitary, but the calyx is split by the pods ;
in the var. segetalis, Koch, the flowers are in pairs.—M‘T. Cowan.
“Difficult to name, being in fruit only. It seems to be what we
reckon as the type (V. segetalis, Thuill.), though the pods are solitary.”
—KE. 8S. Marsuauu. “Is var. segetalis, Koch. The seeds are 3.5 mm.
in diameter.”—J. A. Wuextpon. “Is V. angustifolia, Reich.”—
A. THELLUNG.

Lathyrus tuberosus, L. Askham Ironworks, v.-c. 69, July and
Aug. 1912. These plants, like those of Melilotus alba, M. arvensis,
Poa compressa, Bromus japonicus, Coronopus didymus, and Lepidium
ruderale no doubt have been directly introduced from the continent.
Not one of them is to be found elsewhere in the neighbourhood.—
D. Lump. ‘“ Yes, and as an Alien new to 69.”—G. C. Drucr.

Rubus idaeus x sublustris, Lees. ‘The Moors,” Alphamstone,
Essex N., v.-c. 19, July 4, 1912.—G. C. Brown. ‘The one sheet now
sent seems to be idaeus x caesius. Another sheet (or sheets?) for-
warded to me some weeks ago by Mr Brown (I suppose with same
locality and date) looked like tdaews x sublustris. Possibly both
hybrids occur in the locality, and may have been collected by
Mr Brown for distribution.”—-W. M. Roaers.

Rubus fruticosus, L. Seedlings. Askham Ironworks, v.-c. 69, Aug.
16, 1912.—D. Lump. ‘“I can suggest no segregate name for these
little seedlings.” —-W. M. Rocrrs. ‘These seedlings probably belong
to group Koehleriani; as an aggregate, FR. rosaceus, Wh. and N.,
may be suggested, or perhaps rather &. dasyphyllus, Rogers, which
is more frequent in that part of England.” —E. 8. MarsHatu.

Rubus pulcherrimus, Neum. [Ref. No. 22.] Lane, Stanway,
Essex N., v.-c. 19, July 24, 1912,—G, C. Brown, “Correct.” —W. M,
ROGERS,

246 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

Rubus lentiginosus, Lees. [Ref. No. 343.] Rocky ground at Capel
Curig, among low bushes on the ascent to Moel Siabod, v.-c. 49,
July 11, 1912. On specimens submitted to Rev. Moyle Rogers, he
wrote: ‘Good A. lentiginosus, Lees, practically identical with Lees’
small specimen of it from Aber Valley, now in my herbarium. I
should not be surprised if it is identical with Lees’ type specimen
now in the Herb. Bab. at Cambridge, collected by him on the rocky
ground at Capel Curig among low bushes on the ascent to Moel
Siabod, Aug. 1849.—S. H. BickHam. ‘“Correct.”—-W. M. Rocers.

Rubus mucronatus, Blox. Ditch bank, Newton Lane, near Chester,
v.-c. 58, July 25, 1912.—-C. WarrrraLu. ‘Yes ; apparently a shade
grown state.”—W. M. Rocers.

Rubus ericetorum, Lefv., var. cuneatus, Rogers and Ley. Abernant
Park, Aberdare, v.-c. 41, Aug. 11, 1912. A form I know well.—H. J.
RIDDELSDELL. ‘ Correct.” —W. M. Roarrs.

Rubus serpens, Weihe. Twelve O’clock Drive, Brandon, July 1912.
Seems not hitherto observed in Warwickshire. — L. CumMIna.
“‘ Correct.” —W. M. Rocrrs.

Geum urbanum, L. Seedlings. Railway-side, Askham, v.-c. 69,
Aug. 24, 1912.—D. Lumps. |

Potentilla mixta, Nolte (P. reptans x procumbens). Peat moor,
Ashcot Road, North Somerset, Aug. 6, 1912.—J. W. Wuirtz. ‘Looks
right ; but my material is too poor for certainty.” —E. 8S. MARsHALL.

Potentilla suberecta, Zimm. (P. procumbens x sylvestris). On the
peat of Edington Moor, North Somerset, Aug. 7, 1912.—J. W. Waite.
“Yes; the P. erecta x procumbens.” —G. C. Drucr. “I agree.”—
K. 8. MarsHa.t.

Potentilla erecta, Hampe x procumbens, Sibth. Heathy ground,
close to sea, amongst Hrica, Rosa spinosissima, &c., at Mead End,
Hordley, Hants, July 27, 1912.—J. C. Menvitn “ Probably so ;
nearer procumbens in foliage, but the general appearance is quite
intermediate.”— EK. 8S. MARSHALL.

Acaena Sanguisorbae, Vahl. I found this native of Australia
and New Zealand growing on a rocky bank of the Tweed for some
300 to 400 feet. It has become quite established, rooting as it
does from the nodes of its runners, and is increasing rapidly.
The fruits teem in New Zealand wool. They are called there by
the natives Bidi-bidis, and give a red stain to the wool. This is

REPORT FoR 1912. 247

one of many spots where it grows by Tweedside. ?V.-c. 79, Oct. 5,
1912.—I. M. Haywarp. ‘Dr Thellung suggests comparing these
specimens with the sub-species nova zelandiae (Kirk), Bitter.”—
G. C. Druce.

Potertum polygamum, Waldst. and Kit. Fallow field on chalk,
Royston, v.-c. 20, July 4, 1912. This is larger, and flowers a month
or three weeks later than the common P. Sanguisorba. When the
specimens were collected, July 4, P. Sanguisorba was quite over ; in
only a very few cases were fruits even to be found.—R. 8. ADAMSON.
“Ts var. platylophum, Druce = P. platylophum, Jord.” — J. A.
WHELDON.

Rosa ? [Ref. No. 786.] By the Beverley, Coombe, Surrey,
July 25, 1912. This rose, whilst it is not quite so glandular as my
No. 838, is, I believe, the same form.—C. E. Brirron. This, by its
hairy leaflets, connects the last gathering with the plant placed by
Dingler to his unpublished name of &. tomentella, var. anonyma,
which he considers to be a form of R. caryophyllacea, Chr. (see p. 37,
Inst of Brit. Roses). Though plants with glabrous and with pubescent
leaflets are very rarely classed together by rhodologists, there is little
doubt about the close affinity between Mr Britton’s Nos. 786 and 858,
but whether they are better placed in the Scabrata sub-group of group
Canina or in group Tomentella is open to question.—A. H. W.-Dop.
“Styles thinly hispid; fruit globose. Under &. inconspicua, Déségl.,
as defined by Wolley-Dod in Jowrn. Bot., 1911, Suppl., p. 19.”—
EK. 8S. MarsHatt.

Rosa ? [Ref. No. 838.] Open ground, Malden, Surrey, Aug.
19,1912. TI believe this is identical with the plant referred to by Major
Wolley-Dod, in his List of British Roses, under &. Beatricis, Burn. and
Gremli. Major Wolley-Dod may possibly be right in hesitating to
refer this rose to the Rubiginose, but it can hardly be placed in his
group of Canina, if due regard is paid to the hairy mid-ribs of the
leaflets. Besides the possession of setze below the inflorescence, this
rose is remarkable for the glands (most prominent in the living plant)
on the lower surface of the leaflets being not confined to the mid-ribs
and principal veins, but scattered all over the surface.—C. E. Brirron.
‘Both these roses seem to me to belong to the same group as the
Ashton rose sent to the Club last year by Mr Druce under the name
of R. caryophyllacea, Chr. forma (see note in last year’s Report, p. 87).
To it also belong roses distributed by the late Rev. Mr Ley, from
Catsworth and one or two other places, under the name of &. Borrers,
Woods, var. I consider Mr Ley’s diagnosis as correct, and that both
the above and the others I have mentioned form a group of variations
belonging to R. Borreri, Woods (R. tomentella, Lém.). Dr Dingler

248 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

associated the Catsworth plant to a group which occurs in Rhenish
Bavaria, and which he has named provisionally &. tomentella, Lém.,
var. anonyma. From Dr Dingler I have received a fine series of var.
anonyma. There are very considerable differences amongst the different
specimens, especially as to the form of the leaves, but in spite of these
differences I am disposed to agree with him in considering them as
one group. One or two of his forms approach pretty closely the
British forms above mentioned, and perhaps until the whole group
has been further studied in both countries, and the results compared,
we may call ours also in the meantime &. Borrerz, Woods, var. anonyma.”
—W. Barcnay. “This seems to be an extreme form of the plant
referred to under &. Beatricis, Burn. and Geml., on p. 21 of my List of
British Roses. I believe Prof. Dingler suggested some other name for
it, but I am writing away from my herbarium and notes, so have only
my memory to guide me. These specimens have many of their leaflets”
as glandular beneath as in the M/icranthae, with which the Scabratae
form a connecting link, but the aciculate flowering branches are
unusual for either sub-group, though similar ones are occasionally found
in otherwise very different specimens. I can give no definite name to
Mr Britton’s plant.,A. H. W.-Dop. ‘“ Near the Coombe plant ;
fruits not so round, but they appear scarcely separable.”—E. S.
MarsuHatu. “No flowers. I think both these come under my Hosa
Rothschild (see Report 1912, pp. 157-159), notwithstanding their
more spherical fruit, and slightly more hairy mid-rib.”—-G. C. Druce.

fosa wnvoluta, Sm. forma = Rosa pimpinellifolia x tomentosa.
June 24, Aug. 1, Oct. 1, 1912. In each sheet I enclose a specimen
grown in a garden for fifteen years and one in the wild state about
50 ft. higher up. The wild one seldom blooms, being in a shady spot,
and it is gradually dwindling and dying out. The flower is larger
and solitary, not a cluster, as it is under cultivation, where the plant
becomes a large and beautiful bush.—I. M. Haywarp. ‘TI have
seen a number of specimens of Miss Hayward’s rose, received from
herself, and consider it as the hybrid &. pimpinellifolia x tomentosa
(omissa group). The omissa group is the prevailing form of tomentosa
in Selkirk. The leaves of the Selkirk hybrid are much less hairy
than in most Scottish forms of the same rose.”—-W. Barctay.
“Yes, a form of this hybrid with thinly hairy leaflets, which, for
those who prefer a segregate name, may be placed under &. Sabini,
Woods.”—A. H. W.-Dop. ‘Upon the whole, I am disposed to think
this &. mollis x spinosissima, though the pedicels are rather long for
that hybrid.” —E. S. MarsHa tt.

Rosa mollis x spinosissima (R. Sabini, Woods). Near Roley
Bridge, Westmorland, Aug. 7, 1912. Though I have labelled these
specimens as above, I do not mean it to be inferred that I think

REPORT FOR 1912. 249

the parentage to be derived in part from A. spinosissima, L., as a
segregate. I only saw one bush of the aggregate in the neighbour-
hood, and did not stop to see which segregate it belonged to. The
other parent is more likely to be &. mollis than FR tomentosa, as
the former is much the more frequent species. The hybrid is
abundant and constant. It seems to be nearer the form &. Sabini
than &. Doniana, and is certainly not FR. gracilis, which was founded
partly on specimens from this locality —A. H. Wottry-Dop. “This
is no doubt a form of R. involuta, Sm. There can be no question
as to one parent being £&. spinosissima, L., but from the specimen
before me I could not say whether the second parent is R. mollis,
Sm., or a form of &. tomentosa, Sm. But as Major Wolley-Dod saw
the bush, he is in a much better position to decide as to the second
parent than I am, and therefore I accept his diagnosis That does
not mean that I consider A. Sabini, Woods, as identical in most
cases with Ff. mollis x spinosissima.”—-W. Barcuay. ‘ Undoubtedly.”
—H. 8. MarsHatt.

Pyrus communis, L., b. Achras, Gaertn. By the river at Llandaff,
v.-c. 41, Aug. 30, 1902. No fl. or fr. seen, but probably rightly so
named.—H. J. RipDELSDELL.

Pyrus communis, L., var. Achras, Gaertn. Radley Wood, Berks,
May 1912.—G. C. Druck.

Pyrus Aucuparia, Ehrh. Seedlings. Millwood, Dalton-in Fur-
ness, v.-c. 69, Sep. 30, 1912.—D. Lumps.

Pyrus minima, Ley. Craig Cille, v.-c. 42, Aug. 21, 1906. These
specimens, of Mrs Ley’s collecting, are sent for the benefit of members
who have joined the Club of recent years.—H. J. RipDELSDELL.

Pyrus Aria, Ehrh., forma with incise-lobate, very plicate leaves.
Foot of Cooper’s Hill, v.-c. 33, July 1, 1912. Perhaps var. inezsa,
Reichb.—H. J. Rippenspet,. “Hardly differs from what we
regard as the type.”—E. 8. MarsHAtt.

Pyrus latifolia, Syme, var. decipiens, N.E. Br. Leigh Woods, N.
Somerset, Aug. 22, 1905. Coll. A. Ley. Hedlund calls this form ‘?
Sorbus Mougeoti, Soy-Will. subsp. anglica, Hedlund x S. latzfolia,
Syme, nearer the former. —H. J. RipDELSDELL.

Crataegus monogyna, Jacq., var. leiocalyx, Druce. [Ref. No.
4860.| Also [Ref. No. 4907] with one style, tube glabrous. Twin-
stead, Essex N., May 1912. The older name under monogyna is var.
glabrata, Sonder, Fl. Hamb. p. 265, 1851. If Engler’s Pfanzenreich

250 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

be followed we must write it Mespilus monogyna, Jacq., var. glab-
rata, Sond. In some of the Crataegi I have intentionally dried the
leaves and flowers only, since in the Herbarium they are, when attach-
ed to the woody branches, so quickly destroyed by insects.—G. C.
DRUCE.

Crategus monogyna, Jacq., var. glabrata, Sond. Hillside, and
frequent, Crynant, v.-c. 41, May 19, 1912. I had never detected this
form with glabrous calyx in Glamorgan until this date, but have
found an odd plant or two since near Llandaff. Perhaps it is an up-
land form!—H. J. RIppDELspELL. “But my specimen has not a
glabrous calyx tube and is not therefore glabrata, Sonder.”—G. C.
DRUCE.

Crategus monogyna, Jacq., var. laciniata, Wallr. | Ref. No. 2.
Butchers Green, Stanway, Essex N., v.-c. 19, May 21, 1912.—G. C.
Brown. “Not very good daciniata, the leaves should have two deep
sinuses on either side, and the upper part of each segment should be
rather deeply toothed.” —G. C. Druce.

Crategus monogyna, Jacq., var. kyrtostyla, Fingerh. [Ref. No. 1.|
Roadside, Stanway, Essex N., v.-c. 19, May 21, 1912.—G. C. Brown.
“No; Fingerhuth says of his species, not variety, ‘calycibus hir-
sutis’: these are glabrous; moreover, kyrtostyla is_ practically
synonymous with monogyna except for the bent style, an inconstant
character of trifling importance, and in these specimens some of the
styles are nearly straight.”—G. C. Druce.

Crategus monogyna, Jacq., var. kyrtostyla, Fingerh. Colley Hill,
Reigate, May 17, 1912. Beyond being rather more hairy on the
foliage, this agrees well with Fingerhuth’s description and figure
of Crategus kyrtostyla in Linnea (1829). I think it will be noticed
that the style, besides being bent or curved near the summit, is
rather longer than that of C. monogyna. Calyx villous.—C. E.
Sammon. ‘Even on these specimens there are many styles which
are straight or are only slightly bent. Some good botanists only
treat C. kyrtostyla, Fingh., as=C'. monogyna, Jacq.” —G. C. DRucE.

Crategus monogyna, Jacq. (1), var. splendens, Druce. Hedge,
Netherton, Ross, v.-c. 36, Oct. 2, 1911. Fruit much larger than
usual. Perhaps the form is to be regarded as an intermediate
between type and variety.—H. J. RippetspeLtt. Also from cliffs
near Redhead, Forfarshire, v.-c. 90, N.C.R., Sept. 8, 1912. [Ref.
No. 901.] BR. and M. CorstorpHIne, in excursion with the British
Association. ‘Yes; Mr. Corstorphine’s specimens, which I saw
fresh in Forfarshire, are practically correct ; the Netherton specimen

REPORT FoR 1912. 251

is scarcely so typical.,.—G. C. Druce. ‘Only one Forfarshire
specimen sent.”—J. CRYER.

Crategus monogyna x oxyacanthoides? |Ref. No. 4820.] Twin-
stead, Essex N., May 1912. Veins recurved, styles 1 and 2, calyx
glabrous.—G. C. Drucre. ‘ Probably right enough ; but mere scraps,
of little use for herbarium study.”—E. S. MarsHatu.

Crategus monogyna x oxyacanthordes’ [Ref. No. 4844.] Twin-
stead, Essex N., May 1912. Pedicels hairy, veins recurved, styles 2.
Probably the hybrid.—G. C. Druce.

C’. monogyna, Jacq., var. [Ref Neo. 5233.] Stow Wood, Oxford,
Aug. 1912.—G. C. Druce.

Crategus Oxyacantha, L. (C. oxyacanthordes, Thuill.) [Ref. No.
748.] Hedge in fields near North Cheam, Surrey, July 11, 1912.
A form of this hawthorn with the leaves more cut up than usual.
Perhaps Mr Druce can furnish a name.—C. E. Brirron. ‘“ Not
typical oryrcanthoides by any means, since although two styled, the
veins of the lower lobes mostly curve outwards, and the leaves are of
a dull green. There are no flowers, but I believe it is either a hybrid
or more probably a form of monogyna. With regard to the name
C. Oxyacantha, L., I may add that the specimens so labelled in Herb.
Innn. are all monogyna. The leaf-cutting is unusual, and I should
like to see flowering specimens.”—G. C. Druce.

Crataegus oxyacanthordes, Thuill., var. eriocalyx (Freyn), Druce.
[Ref. No. 4845.] Twinstead, Essex N., May 1912. Herr Freyn
named similar specimens C’. Oxyacantha, L., var. ervocalyx.—-G. C.
Druce. ‘Not in fruit; apparently a clerical error for var. ertocalys,
Druce, as the calyx-tube is villous. No good leaf-material. I cannot
help thinking that too many slight ‘ varieties’ are alleged.”—E. 8.
MarsHauu. ‘“ My label is ‘eriocalyx.’”—J. CRYER.

Saxifraga groenlandica, L. [Ref. No. 351.] Origin, summit of
Mt. Brandon; cult., Sedbury, Co. Kerry, May 7, 1912.—S. H.
BickHam. ‘TI have growing two very distinct, densely caespitose plants
from this station, which appear to be good species; they have
not yet flowered in cultivation, but I believe one of them to be the
same as this, which is the S. groenlandica of Engler’s Monograph.
Unfortunately there is no specimen in Herb. Linn. The Spanish
S. groenlandica, Lapeyrouse, non Linn. (S. Z'ratiana, F. Schultz) is
clearly different ; true S. groenlandica, according to Engler, only occurs
in the Harz mountains, British Isles, Iceland, Greenland, and Labrador.
Dr Moss recently wrote to me that Ostenfeld considered S. groenlandica

252 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

a synonym of S. decipiens, Ehrh., and our S. hirta and S. Sternbergii
forms of S. decypiens (this, I am convinced, is a mistake). In S.
decipiens the leaf-segments are blunt, not pointed ; Engler makes both
S. caespitosa, L., and S. groenlandica, L., varieties of it, but he was
young when his book was published forty-one years ago, and both are,
I believe, specifically distinct.” —E. S. MarsHAtt. .

Saxifraga sponhemica, Gmel., var. % [Ref. No. 3713.] Cwm
Idwal, Carnarvon, v.-c. 49, June 26, 1912. Bright green; usually a
neat, compact plant. Flowers as a rule rather small, creamy white.
T do not yet know of any precise name for this striking form, which
also grows on the Snowdon range. Associated with S. hypnoides, L.;
various connecting links occur, probably of hybrid origin.—E. S.
MARSHALL.

Parnassia palustris, L., var. condensata, Travis and Wheldon. Sand
dunes, South Lancashire. Flowers, Freshfield, Aug. 1912; fruit,
- Birkdale, Sep. 1912.—J. A. Wuexpon. (vide Journ. Bot. 1912, p.
254). ‘T gathered this, still more dwarfed, in 1886, at Keiss Links
and on cliffs near Wick, Caithness; then and still it seems to me a
coast-state, due to local conditions, rather than a valid variety.” —E.
S. MARSHALL.

Ribes rubrum, L., var. No.1. By River Ely below St. Fagan’s, in
a wood, v.-c. 41, May 1, 1912. Not quite so thickly hairy as No. 7,
but the spikes show a tendency to be less drooping.—H. J. Rippets-
DELL. ‘Var. petraewm, Sm. Racemes pubescent, leaves hairy
beneath, glabrous above. No. 2 is the same form.”—E. S MarsHa tt.
“Are not No. 1 and No. 2 the var. a. Bromfieldianum, Syme, #.B.
iv., 442 Compare the description.” —G. C. Druce.

Ribes rubrum, L., var. No 2. Wood by R. Ely, below St. Fagan’s,
v.-c. 41, May 1, 1912. Only slightly differing from No. | in hairiness,
etc.—H. J. RIDDELSDELL.

Ribes rubrum, L., var. No. 5. One plant in middle of small
wood, Cwrt Colman, Bridgend, v.-c. 41, May 1912. Much hairier and
greyer than the other forms sent. In the garden of Cwrt Colman,
half a mile away, were very similar plants, none of which however
showed teeth like those of these leaves. Still very probably an
escape. Spikes much less drooping than in the other forms.—H. J.
RIDDELSDELL. ‘ Probably var. Smithianum, Syme.”—G. C. Druck.

Ribes rubrum, L., var. No.7. By R. Taff, Llandaff, v.-c. 41, April
29, 1912. Spikes of fruits considerably hairy, as are also the leaves, .
especially below. But I cannot assign it to any named variety.—H.

REPORT FoR 1912. ; 253

J. RIDDELSDELL. “‘ Under var. petraewm, Sm., I believe ; leaves thinly
hairy beneath; racemes glandular-pubescent.”—E. S. MarsHatu.
“Comes under var. Bromfieldianum, Syme. The leaves are nearly
glabrous above.” —G. C. Drucr.

Sedum Fabaria, Koch. [Ref No. 4910.] Tubney, Berks, July
1912.—G. C. Druce.

Sedum Drucet, Graebner. [Ref. No. 5248.] Besilsleigh, Berks,
Aug. 1912. See Report 1912, pp. 160-162. Flowers shall follow next
season. _—G. C. DRUCE.

Sedum rupestre, L. Limestone crags, The Leete, Flintshire, v.-c.
51, July 22, 1912.— C. WaTERFALL.

Callitriche palustris, L. [Ref. No. 146.] Stream, Ouchterlony,
Guthrie, v.-c. 90, N.C.R., Aug. 15, 1908.-—R. and M. CorsrorPHINE.
“ Yes, the restricted C. vernalis, Kuetz., and a new county record.” —
G. C. Druce. “Only one specimen sent.”— J. CRYER.

Callitriche ? Silversprings, Kimble, Bucks, July and Sept.
1912.—F. L. Foorp-Keucey. “No fruits present; probably C. verna.”
—C. H. Osrenretp. “The only fruit on my sheet has keeled (not
winged) lobes, and long, loosely reflexed, persistent styles; these
characters point to C. polymorpha, Lonnr. The habit is that of a
large-leaved C. stagnalis.” HE. S. MarsHauyu. ‘“ On the specimen sent
I can find no fruit, and it is essential in the genus (except the
antumnalis section) to have fruit to safely decide. Still, by the
arrangement of the leaves, their structure, &c., I think this is
C. obtusangula, Le Gall., but such specimens are never quite satis-
factory.”—A. Bennett. “Probably C. vernalis, but it is sterile, and
fruit is necessary for determination in this section.”—J. GrRovus.
“‘T have known this plant in the above station for some years. I
have never obtained ripe fruit, but from its general appearance
I strongly suspect it may be C’. polymorpha, which is now believed
to be a hybrid of stagnalis and wntermedia.”—G. C. Drucz.

Callitriche autumnalis, L. Marlee Loch, Perthshire, v.-c. 89, Aug.
1911.—M‘T. Cowan, jun. ‘Yes, the ordinary form of the species.”—
A. BENNETT.

Callitriche truncata, Guss. Running stream, Grande Mare, Guern-
sey, Aug. 16, 1912.—W. C. Barron. “Yes, the plant recorded as
truncata, Guss., which I gathered in this locality where it is always
barren, but my Lancresse specimens show peduncled fruit, and they
probably belong, with the Westerham Kentish specimens, to var.

254 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

occidentalis (Rouy as a race), which is the plant of Western France.”
—G. C. Druce. ‘No properly developed fruit but the species is of
course unmistakable. It apparently requires still water to fruit at all
freely.” J. GROVES.

Epilobium hirsutum, L., 2 x EH. montanum, L., g. Artificial
hybrid, produced in July 1909 by emasculating flowers of JZ.
irsutum, L., and pollinating from #. montanum, L., insects
being excluded by means of paper bags. Both parents were
grown under observation in a garden at Tewkesbury, in which also the
hybrid has been cultivated, 1910-12. During these three seasons the
plant has varied somewhat in vegetative characters, but the speci-
mens distributed represent the most abundant form. Long runners
are not produced, the plant being propagated by close- -growing rosettes.
Another character of £. hime viz., the possession of long simple
hairs, is also recessive in the hybrid (compare £. hirsutum x,
tetragonum, distributed 1910). No perfect flowers are ever produced,
the nearest approach being a single bud which protruded a four-lobed
stigma in 1912. Most of the flowers remain minute, and dry up with-
out opening ; ovary, sepals, stamens, style and stigmas, are all present
in a rudimentary condition. This is the most extreme case of sterility
that has so far been observed in an Hpilobium hybrid. It is clear that
the first generation hybrid is the only one that can exist.—R. H.
Compton. ‘Here the general appearance and foliage show good
evidence of both parents; the flowers are small and deformed, as I
have frequently observed in natural garden hybrids. The few wild
examples of this cross that I have seen have large, showy We — KH.
S. MARSHALL.

Epilobium hirsutum, L., 9 x EL. parviflorum, Schreb., 3. Artificial
hybrid, made 1911, Tewkesbury, July 1912. This artificial
hybrid was produced in 1911, both parents as well as_ the
hybrid being grown in a Tewkesbury garden. The plants
have the type of clothing found in ¥£. parviflorum, viz., long
simple hairs throughout, mixed with shorter clavate hairs in the
inflorescence. There are no long runners such as L. hirsutum possesses.
The flowers are somewhat smaller than those of #. hirsutum, but have
the petals coloured as in that parent. The pollen is abortive, but the
ovules are (at least in part) capable of fertilisation, so that insect
visits produce some capsules containing a few good seeds ; and seed is
set on pollination from either parent.—R. H. Compron. “Just like
wild specimens. Though the species are so often associated, I have
seldom found this hybrid.” —E. 8. MArsHAL.t.

Epilobium montanum, L., 9 x #. parviflorum, Schreb., ¢. Artificial
hybrid, produced in 1911, both parents as well as the hybrid being

REPORT FOR 1912. 255

grown in a Tewkesbury garden. Fourteen plants were obtained in
the first generation, all being uniform except for a slight variation in
colour of flowers. Good pollen is produced, and long capsules are
formed, these however containing a high proportion of abortive seeds.
Doubtless the second and subsequent generations will be very multi-
form.—R. H. Compron. ‘A good intermediate.”—E. 8. MARSHALL.

Circaea lutetiana, L., var. [Ref. No. 4760.] Lacey Green, Bucks.,
growing in rich deep leaf-mould, in shelter and partial shade,
hence its small size is remarkable. Sep. 2, 1912.—G. C. Druce.
“A small state of var. ovalifolia, Lasch., in Linnaea, 2, p. 46 (leaflets
truncate or rounded at the base), I suppose. It looks starved.”—
BK. S. MarsHauy

Circaea. Lower Faldonside, near Galashiels, alt. 330 feet, v.-c. 79,
Aug. 1, 1912.—I. M. Haywarp. “Is C. lutetiana, L.”—-C. H.
OsTENFELD. ‘‘ Leaves dull, thin; pedicels ebracteate. I think that
this, also, is var. ovalifolia, Lasch., more luxuriant.” —E. S. MARSHALL.

Helosciadium nodiflorum, Koch, var. vulgare, F. Schultz. Ditch
between Hull Road and Crosby, 8. Lanes, v.-c. 59, July 11, 1911.—
J. A. WuExLpon. “The Apiwm nodiflorum, Reichb. fil.,— G. C.
DRvuceE.

Apium nodiflorum, Reichb. fil., forma. Ditch, Fairwater, v.-c. 41,
Aug. 14 and 20,1912. It seems very doubtful if any of the characters
usually relied upon for the diagnosis of the varieties (A. repens is a
good species, as the fruit shows) e.g. length of ped. of umbel, rooting
of stem, shape of leaflet, involucre, &c., are of any value for the
purpose ; one form changes at once into another according to varia-
tion in exposure, and two different forms may come from one root.
The present form is very near ochreatum, DC., except in size; but
it is impossible to deny its right to go to vulgare, Schultz, in many
respects. —H. J. RIDDELSDELL.

Ammi majus, L. Cult., Colchester, Aug. 7 and 10,1912. Grown
from seed of wild origin received from Dr E. G. Gilbert in 1911.
They are rather drawn out from being sown too thickly.—G. C.
Brown. ‘The var. serratum, Mutel. = genuinum, Gren. and Godr.”—
A. THELLUNG.

Carum segetum, Benth. and Hook. fil. Great Wymondley Road,
Hitchin, Herts, Aug. 24, 1912.—J. E. Lirtie.

Myrrhis Odorata, Scop. Not knowingly introduced in a wood on
limestone hill, Highlands, Amberley, Glos. W., May 16, 1912.—

256 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

IF. L. Foorp-Ketcey. ‘A new county record for 34, but probably
an alien.” —G. C. Druce.

Cherophyllum awreum, L. Banks of the Teith, Callander, W.
Perth, July 1912. See paper by Mr G. C. Druce (Journ. Bot.,
April 1911), and also Bot. Hx. Club Report, 1911, p. 97. Happening
to be at Callander, I collected a few specimens which may be accept-
able to the club. Like Mr Druce, I found the plant abundant over a
considerable area in meadows by the Teith.— A. WILSON.

Anthriscus Cerefolium, Hoffm., = Cerefoliwm sativum, Besser.
Slopes of Edgehill, Warwickshire, June 1912. A new county record ;
doubtless an escape from old cultivation.—G. C. Drucr. Also under
a wall, on a very high bank overhanging the river at Ross, v.-c. 36,
June 9, 1912. In great quantity, strongly established.—H. J.
RIDDELSDELL.

Seselt Libanotis, Koch. Chalk pit, Cherry Hinton, Cambs., Sep.
1910.—E. Foorp-KEtcEy.

Daucus gummifer, All. Close turf, exposed, Port Soif, west
coast, Guernsey, Aug. 7, 1912.—W. C. Barton.

Caucalis nodosa, Scop. Dry hedge-bank, Haggs, Dalton-in-Fur-
ness, v.-c. 69, Sep. 20, 1912. The books say that the umbels of this
plant have involucral bracts none or one. All these plants have
several, and this seemed to be the case with all the plants at this
station.—D. Lums. “Yes, a new county record for 69.”—G. C.
DRUCE.

Hedera Helix, L. Seedlings. Millwood, Dalton-in-Furness, v.-c.
69, Sep. 30, 1912.—D. Lump.

Sambucus nigra, L. Seedlings. Askham Ironworks, v.-c. 69,
Aug. 16, 1912.—D. Lums.

Galium Mollugo, L., var. t insubricum, Gaud. Hedge, Bolston,
v.-c. 36, July 31, 1907. Coll. A. Ley. I was with Mr Ley and
collected this at the same time, and now send it to the Club for the
sake of expert opinion, as Mr Ley had doubts about the same.—H. J.

RIDDELSDELL. ‘ Yes, G. awnsubricum, Gaud. G. elatwm, var. wmbro-
sum, Gren. & Godr., agreeing with the spec. in Schultz Herb. Normale.”
—G. C. Drucr. ‘Agrees admirably with Babington’s description.

A rare form, in Britain, which I have never been able to find.”—E. 8.
MARSHALL.

REPORT FoR 1912. 957

Galium Mollugo, L., var. [Ref. No. 1301.] Railway bank near
Tintern, v.-c. 34, June 14, 1912.—H. J. RipprELspDELL.

Galiwm Mollugo, L., var. [Ref. No. 1310.] Rocky pasture above
Lancaut, v.-c. 34, June 1912. This form seems common about the
neighbourhood. In the above locality it was small and prostrate.
Plants growing by the railway near the tunnel between Tintern and
Tidenham (also now sent to the Club [Ref. No. 1301]) were larger
and nearly erect. A similar form was found growing on a wall below
St Briavel’s [Ref. No. 1306] at c. 600 ft. I believe they are all a
variety (? Bakeri, Syme) of G'. Mollugo, with narrow leaves, and all
four to six weeks earlier than the type in coming into bloom.—
H. J. Rippeuspety. “ Probably 1310 is an erectwm form. Freyn
named a similar plant from The Parks, Oxford, G'. Mollugo, var.
erectum, Beck. It is an interesting form, worthy of further study.
1301 and 1306 may belong to Baker.”—G. C. Druce.

Galium Mollugo, L., var. [Ref. No. 1306.] Wall near St Briavel’s,
v.-c. 34, June 16, 1912.—H. J. Rippetspeuy. “ Var. Bakeri, Syme.
In Somerset I find that it flowers two or three weeks before the type,
and about as early as G’. erectum.”—E. 8. MArRsHALL.

Galium ‘%erectum, Huds. [Ref. No. 1309.] Near Freams Farm,
Cranham, v.-c. 33, July 9, 1912. I believe it is this species rather
than a Mollugo form.—H. J. RippetspELL. ‘TI believe so.”—E. S.
MarsHatu. ‘Probably, but one would like to have seen it in fruit.”
—G. C. Druce.

Galium uliginosum, L. Oughton Head Common, Hitchin, Herts,
June and Aug. 1912.—J. E. Lirrte.

Sherardia arvensis, L., var. maritima, Griseb. Cultivated ground
near Hitchin, Herts, June and Sept. 1912. Intermixed with type, in
fair abundance. Is it found in other inland counties ?——J. E. Lirrte.
“Yes, it would be interesting to see if the character of obsolete calyx-
teeth is retained in culture. It occurs in Oxfordshire, &c.”—G. C.
DRvcE.

Valerianella olitoria, Poll., var. lasiocarpa, Reichb. Chalky bank
on Chilterns above Princes Risborough, Bucks, May and June, 1912.
—F. L. Foorp-Ketcey. “The fruits sent to me are quite glabrous, but
for a few hairs at the apex; only type, I should say.”—E. 8S. Mar-
SHALL. ‘‘ My specimens have a few hairs on the fruits, but at the best
it is but a feeble variety.”—-G. C. Druck. -

Aster novi-belgui, L. (?) In marshes, thickets near the railway
loop-line, Wolvercote, Oxon, Sep. 1912. Originally brought with

258 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

ballast and noticed there first in 1888, but now spreading freely in the
vicinity. The name is given with some hesitation.— G. C. Druce.
“This is Aster longifolius, Lam. (saltem valde approx.)’—A.
THELLUNG.

Erigeron mucronatus, DC. Old walls, St. Peter Port, Guernsey,
Aug. 4, 1912. Established over forty years.—W. C. Barton. “ Dr
THELLUNG names it #. Karvinskianus, DC., var. mucronatus (DC.)
Aschers. But they are kept as distinct species in /nd. Kew.”—G. C.
DRUCE.

Filago spathulata, Presl. Garden weed, Totland Bay, Isle of
Wight, Sep. 6, 1912.—W. C. Barton. “Yes.”—G. C. Druce and
O. E. SALMON. ec

Pilaga apiculata, G. E. Sm. Frilford Heath, Berks, Aug. 1912.
—G. C. Druce.

Filago germanica, L., var. axillaris, mihi. [Ref. No. 5008.] See
Report 1912, p. 164. Near Stow Wood, Oxford, Aug. 1912. Bré-
bisson (47. Normand. 162, 1869) describes an analagous condition of
I. spathulata as brachyclada.—G. C. Druce.

Gnaphalium uliginosum, L. [Ref. No. 790.] Burgh Heath, Surrey,
July 28, 1912. <A prostrate form remarkable for the manner in
which the numerous branches were appressed to the soil.—C. E.
Brirron. “Yes, a prostrate form of the type (var. wcanum, Neilr.)
with glabrous achenes.”—G. C. Druce.

Inula crithmordes, L. Salt marshes, Keyhaven, 8. Hants, July 26,
1912. Although long known as an inhabitant of the pebbly strand at
Hurst Castle, on the Solent, this plant for the first time appeared to
have extended its limits, and I found it this summer in two places,
distant about three-quarters of a mile from each other, (a) near the
Coastguards’ House, Keyhaven, and (6) on shingle-banks near the
Sturt Point, Milford-on Sea.—J. C. MELvItt.

Helianthus scaberrimus, Ell. Sketches, ii., 423, 1824, not of Bentham
Bot. Voy. Sulph., 28, 1844 = H. rigidus, Desf. Cat. Hist. Paris, Ed. 3,
184, 1829. Alien, North America. Waste ground, Oxford, Sep. 1909.
Also seen in an arable field near Ambrosden, Oxford, 1911. In the
Ind. Kew., Desfontaines’ later name is retained, but Elliott’s has

precedence of that and of the later H. scaberrimus of Bentham.—
G. C. Druce.

Rudbeckia laciniata, L. [Ref. No. 807.] Very abundant by the
Lunan, near Friockheim ; quite naturalised ; v.-c. 90, Sept. 19, 1912.
—R. and M. CorstorpHine. “ Yes.”—A. THELLUNG.

REPORT FoR 1912. 259

Galinsoga parviflora, Cav. A garden weed in Bate’s Nursery,
Oxford, which I have not seen before in the county. Oct. 1912.—
G. C. Druce.

Anthems arvensis, L. Seedlings. Gangsdown Hill, Oxfordshire,
June 1912.—G. C. Drucer.

Chrysanthemum Leucanthemum, L., hairy form. Cindery railway
bank, Mickle Trafford Station, Cheshire, v.-c. 58, June 5, 1912.—
C. WaTERFALL. “Yes, Rouy (fl. France, viii. 272) ignores the
character of pubescence in this polymorphic species.” —G. C. Drucker.

Matricaria suaveolens, Buchenau. Waste ground, Whitchurch,
Salop, v.-c. 40, July 1912.—J. Comper. Also from railway bank,
Hopetoun, v.-c. 84, July 13, 1912.—McT. Cowan, jun.

Artemisia maritima, L., near var. gallica (Willd.). [Ref. No. 72.]
Beside River Colne, Wivenhoe, Essex N., Sept. 19, 1912. Apparently
referable to var. gallica from their upright branches, but differ from
No. 73 in the branches being always turned somewhat to one side
of the stem, while in No. 73 they spring equally from all sides.
This is not apparent in dried specimens, but very noticeable when
fresh. This is doubtless the plant recorded for ‘Colchester and
Wivenhoe’ in Gibson’s Hssex Flora. Also [Ref. No. 73] from
foreshore, near golf links, East Mersea, Essex N., v.-c. 19, Sept. 12,
1912.—G. C. Brown. ‘“ This appears to be near the A. maritima, L.,
Jorma, A. gallica, var. densiflora (Viv. Fl. Cors.) Tiges rameaux, &
rameaux courts, panicule médiocre subpyramidale, serrée, a ramuscules
densement rapprochés; calathides ordt. plus petites que dans var.
robusta, Rouy fl. Fr. p. 300. No. 72 may also belong here.”—
G. C. Drucker.

Tussllago Farfara, L. Seedlings. Askham Ironworks, v.-c. 69,
Aug. 18, 1912.——-D. Lun.

Senecio paludosus, I. Cult., Underdown, Ledbury; probable
origin, Wicken Fen, Aug. 3, 1912.—S. H. Bickuam. “ Fine examples ;
carefully prepared.” —J. Cryer.

Senecio Jacobea, Ll. Seedlings. Askham Ironworks, v.-c. 69,
Aug. 19, 1912.—D. Lump.

Senecio viscosus, L. Shingly shore, Conway beach, Llandudno,
v.-c. 49, July 18, 1912.—S. H. Bickuam.

Senecio sylvaticus, L. [Ref. No. 4924.] A slender erect form on
a heath near Pyrford, Surrey, July 1912.—G. C. Druce,

260 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

Senecio vulgaris, L., var. Larne, Antrim, July 1912. Not
recorded in Cybele Hibernica for North Ireland. Prof. Trow thinks
this may be a praecox hybrid although the foliage is not suggestive of
that parentage.—G. C. Druce.

Senecio vulgaris, L., x S. vulgaris, L., var. radiatus, Koch.
Growing in a garden at Llandaff, 1912. Very probably this hybrid.
—H. J. RIDDELSDELL.

S. vulgaris, L., var. radiatus, Koch (though not as described in
Bab. Man., for the rays are broad and patent and many, each as long
as the disc is broad). Garden, Llandaff, v.-c. 41, Nov. 29, 1912.—
H. J. RIDDELSDELL. 3

Senecio vulgaris, L., var. rubricaulis, Trow. Burstow Park, near
Outwood, Surrey, May 1, 1912. This pretty Groundsel attracted
attention by its red stems, woolliness, and stiff crisped leaves. It is
evidently closely allied to the Cross Common Groundsel, mentioned
by Dr Trow in the Journal of Genetics, ii., p. 271, 1912. The name
on the label is suggested by Dr Trow.—C. E. Satmon. ‘“Trow wrote
S. rubricaulrs.”—G. C. Druce.

Senecio erectus, Trow. Sandy fields, Mildenhall, Suffolk, v.-c. 26,
April 20, 1912. A very common weed on cultivated and waste land
on all calcareous soils in the Cambridge district.—R. S. ADAMson.

Senecio spathulrfolius, DC. This grew in marshy places among
the sand dunes of Le Touquet, France, and I thought members might
like to have it to compare with their Holyhead specimens. In the
vicinity I saw seedlings of Aceras anthropophora growing among the
pine-needles in the wood.—G. C. Druce.

Echinops Ritro, L. Of this European species a few specimens were
seen naturalised by the stream in the Forge Valley, N.E. Yorks.,
Aug. 1912. In the vicinity was Anchusa sempervirens. It is an
addition to our list of alien species.--G. C. Druckr.

Arctium nemorosum, Le}. (untermediwm, Reichb. fil.) North slopes
of Craig Breidden, Montgomeryshire, N. Wales, at 250 feet upwards,
Aug. 5, 1912.—J. C. Metvinn. “Is Lappa minor, DC. = Arctium
minus, Schrank.”—J. A. Wueupon. “Surely, A. minus, Bernh.
Dr Moss informs me that the name of nemorosum, Le}. cannot stand.”
—E. S. MarswHauu. “ Arctiwm pubens, Bab. forma glabrescens.”—A.
THeLLtuNG. “TIT should call this minus; it has not the habit, size of
~ heads, ete., of nemorosum, Lej., of which I have a photograph of
type.” —C. E. Saumon.

REPORT FOR 1912. 261

Cirsium anglicum, DC., var. polycephalum, Druce. Formoyle Hill,
Londonderry, July 1912. Under Cirsiwm britannicum I have des-
cribed this variety in the Report 1912, p. 165. The trivial name
britannicum, which Williams adopts in Prodromus, though not with-
out challenge, for this species, dates from Scopoli /ter Goriz. of 1769,
whereas Carduus pratensis dates from the Flora Anglica of 1778 (not
Jacquin). There is already Cirsiwm pratense, DC., which is a plant
identical with, or allied to monspessulanum. But unaware of this I
used Cirsium pratense for this species in my flora of Berks. Is
Pseudo-Forstert more than a nomen nudum? If published, these
plants may well come under it as Corsium britannicum or pratense,
var. Pseudo-Forstert. The trivial anglicwm used by Lobel only dates
from DC. 1805.—G. C. Drucr. ‘My specimen bears but one head,
and seems untypical only in foliage. Has Mr Druce described
the variety? I do not think that De Candolle’s trivial holds good ;
the earliest post-Linnean name is Cardwus pratensis, which Hudson,
in his second edition quotes as of Jacquin.” —E. 8. Marsnatn. ‘See
Wat. Bot. Ex. Club Rep., 1901-2, p. 15, where reasons are given for
considering this plant—which is evidently the same as the Sussex
form—not to be polycephalum, but nearer Pseudo-orsteri.”—C. E.
SALMON.

Corstum setosum, M. Bieb. Poynings, Sussex. Found growing
in some profusion at Poynings, Sussex, and was told it was increasing
rapidly. It seems quite naturalised there. Aug. 6, 1912.—A. Wes-
sTteR. ‘I thought at first this might pass as named, as in my own
example the leaves seemed almost entire ; however, Mr Cryer tells me
that the leaves on his specimen may be called almost pinnatifid, so I
believe the correct name would be C. arvense, Scop., 8. mite, Koch.
In true setoswm. the leaves are flat, and not decurrent, besides being
more entire and obtuse.”—C. E. Satmon. ‘I think this is best
placed under C. arvense, Scop., 2. mite, Koch.”—J. Crymr. ‘“ Dr
Thellung names this Cirsium arvense, Scop., var. setoswm, M. Bieb., to
which, but not as an extreme form, I have named it.”——-G. C. Druck.

Centaurea nigra, L., forma. [Ref. No. 4762.] This radiate form
is common in some of the marshy meadows of the Vale of Aylesbury.
These came from near Grendon Underwood, Bucks., June 1912. The

Linnean nigra is not radiate.—G. C. Druce. ‘A small form of
what we consider as the type; it varies much in foliage.”—E. S.
Marswatt. ‘Would come under C. nemoralis, Jord., = C. nigra,

var. genuina, Williams.”—J. A. WHELDON.

Centaurea migra, L., var. decupiens, Syme (non Thuill.). — [Ref.
No. 40.] Marshy part of one sandy field, Grandes Rocques, Guernsey,
Aug. 15, 1912. Agrees best with C. pratensis, Thuill.; is not

262 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

C’. decipiens, Thuill. Mr Marquand, Fl. Guernsey, says the rayed
form is generally distributed, but I found it only in the marshy part
of one field, where it was dominant. The involucre bracts varied
from dark to light brown; all heads were rayed.—W. C. Barron.
“Yes, what I call var. decuprens, Syme.”—-G. C. Druce. ‘“ Appar-
ently C. consimilis, Bor., which has pale brown appendages and the
calathia arachnoid at the base.”—J. A. WHELDON.

Crepis capillaris, Wallr., var. diffusa (DC.). Stow Wood, Oxon.,
in sandy fields, Aug. 1912. This appears to be a second flowering of
the year, as there are remains of the previous stems. Perhaps some
one will try to grow it from the achenes to prove its constancy, if,

indeed, this species, like so many of the Compositae, is not apogamous.
—G. C. Druce.

Hieracium aurantiacum, . Alien. Origin, sand dunes near
Formby. Cult., Walton, S. Lancs, v.-c. 59, July 1912.—J. A.
WHELDON. “Correct; not easily mistaken.”—E. F. Linton.

Hreracvum iricum, Fries. Sandstone crags at seashore, 10—25
feet above sea level, south side of Pegal Bay, Waas, Hoy, Orkney,
July 16, 1912.—H. H. Jounsron. ‘“ Very fine specimens of this
species, showing the gradation from few-leaved to stems with five
to six leaves. The head in formation shows well the lax outer
phyllaries, with their usual clothing.”——K. F. Linron. ‘“ Fine speci-
mens. Reported for Gordale, v.-c. 64, N.W. Yorks, but not seen for
many years. Probably extinct now.”—J. CRYER.

Mieracvum amplexicaule, L. Walls at Oxford, where it has been
naturalised since 1794, but I did not gather the root-stock. July 1912.
—G. C. Druce. “Yes. Specimens do not show the persistent
characteristic root-leaf.”—J. Cryer. ‘‘Correct.”—E. F. Linton.

Hieracium rubicundum, F. J.H. Cwm Idwall, Carnarvonshire,
v.-c. 49, July 18, 1912.—W. A. SHooLBRep. ‘Good specimens of
H. rubicundum, F. J. H.”—J. Cryer. “Rightly named.”—E. F.
LINTON.

Hreracvcum rubicundum, F. J. H. Sandstone crags at sea-shore
10— 25 feet above sea level, west side of Walkmill Bay, Orphir,
Mainland, Orkney, July 19, 20, 1912. Native. Leaves dark green
above, paler purplish green beneath; phyllaries blackish green, with
copious blackish bristles ; flowers not scented ; corolla yellow; style
and its spirally recoiled branches yellow.—H. H. Jounston. “ Very
typical specimens with the rather thick leathery purpurascent leaves,
broad phyllaries thinly clothed.”—K. F, Linton,

REPORT FOR 1912. 263

Mreraccum rubicundum, F. J. H., var. Boswelli, Linton.
Mountain limestone, on the coast, Silverdale, May 29, 1912.
Specimens gathered on July 20, 1909, were named by the late
Rev. A. Ley H. rubicundum, F. J. H., var. Boswelli, Linton.—
J. CRYER.

Hieracium caledonicum, F. J. H. Grassy crags at sea-shore,
20-30 feet above sea-level, Scapa, St Ola, Mainland, Orkney, July 5,
1912.—H. H. Jonnston. ‘Typical plants.”— E. F. Linton.

H. Sommerfelti, Lindeb., var. splendens, F. J. H. Great Scar
Limestone, Skirethornes, v.-c. 64, alt. 700 feet, July 27, 1912.—
J. CRYER.

Hieracicum hypochaeroides, Gibs. Ruined walls of Castle Dinas
Bran, above Llangollen, Denbighshire, v.-c. 50, June 15, 1912, fide
Rev. E. F. Linton.—C. WarTkrRFALL.

Mieracvum britannicum, F. J. H. Great Scar Limestone, Miller’s
Dale, v.-c. 57, May 27, 1912.—J. Cryer. “ Foliage very typical.”—
EK. S. MarsHatt.

Hieracium 1 [Ref. No. 344.] (Styles yellow.) On a stony
knoll, Great Orme’s Head, v.-c. 49, Aug. 18, 1912.—S. H. Bickuam.
“ A dwarf form of H. britannicum, F. J. H. Exactly matches some
specimens I have from Linton, in Yorkshire.”—J. Cryer. “ Rather
stunted plants of H. britannicum, F. J. H.”—E. F. Linton.

Mieracvum britannicum, F. J. H. West side of Great Orme’s
Head, Carnarvonshire, v.-c. 49, July 9, 1912.—E. 8. Marsnaui and
W. A. SHooLBRED.—“ The remark on Mr Bickham’s hawkweed,
No. 344, applies here.”—J. Cryer. ‘ Correct.”—-E. F. Linton.

Mreracium pellucidum, Laestad. Great Scar Limestone, Ling Gill,
v.-c 64, alt. 900 feet, Aug. 10, 1912 ; and from Silverdale, railway-side,
v.-c. 60, alt. 25 feet, July 7, 1912. A new county record.—J. CRYEr.
** Correct.”—E. F. Linton and E. 8. MARSHALL.

Hieracium decolor, W. R. Linton. Great Orme’s Head, Carnarvon-
shire, v.-c. 49, July 2, 1912.—W. A. SHoonsrep. ‘“ Phyllaries less
floccose and hairy, but much more glandular than typical Yorkshire
H. decolor.”—J. Cryer. ‘“ Yes.”—E. F. Linon.

Mieracium maculatum, Sm. Great Scar Limestone, Grassington,
v.-c. 64, altitude 900 feet, June 30, 1912.—J. Cryrr. ‘I think that
this may be a weak state of H, maculatum from Ingleton, W. Yorks,

264 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

issued in the Lintons’ Set.”-E. 8. Marsuauy. “ Right.”—E. F.
Linton.

Hieracvwm 1 Volcanic ash, Cwm Idwall, Carnarvonshire,
v.-c. 49, July 13, 1912.—E. 8. Marsuatyt and W. A. SHOOLBRED.
“Seem to be undersized specimens of H. Adlerziw, Almq. The
phyllaries of well developed plants are usually more glandular.”—E.
F. Linton.

Mieracvum diaphanoides, Lindeb. Bottom of Cwm Glas, Carnar-
vonshire, v.-c. 49, July 4, 1912.—W. A. SHoouprep. ‘“ Yes.”—KE. F.
LINTON.

’ Hieracium vulyatum, Fries, var. subravusculum, W. R. lL. Near
Haweswater, Silverdale, v.-c. 60, May 25,1912. Mr Marshall says,
‘Best referred I believe to H. vulgatum. var. subravusculum, W. R.
L.’ It differs however in many respects from the Bolton Abbey
specimens. See Journ. Bot., Sep. 1902; whereas other Silverdale
specimens from the coast match the Bolton Abbey specimens very
closely.—J. Cryer. ‘Compact plant, short peduncle, under type.”—
K. F. Linton.

Mieractum orcadense, W. R. Linton. Sandstone crags at sea
shores, 10-30 feet above sea level, west side of Walkmill Bay, Orphir,
Mainland, Orkney, July 19 and 20, 1912. Leaves green above, paler
green beneath; phyllaries blackish green, with copious blackish
bristles; flowers faintly scented; corolla yellow; style brown,
branches spirally recoiled, brown beneath, yellow above. The Rev.
EK. F. Linton writes :—‘ Beautiful specimens, one showing more sharp-
ly toothed leaves than usual, but it is a luxuriant specimen. All my
previous specimens were from Hoy, where my brother discovered it
under your guidance. The flower head in formalin is wonderfully
fresh and natural.’—H. H. Jonnsron. “I am glad to see this very
rare and good species from a second station.” —E. 8. MArRsHALL.

Mieracvwm ? Cwm Idwall, Carnarvonshire, v.-c. 49, July 13,
1912.—E. 8. MarsHatyt and W. A. SHOOLBRED.

Hieracium * diaphanoides, Lindeb. Dolwyddelan, Carnarvonshire,
v.-c. 49, July 5, 1912.—W. A. SHootprep. ‘This appeared to be
a luxuriant state of the Capel Curig diaphanoides, confirmed by
Rev. E. F. Linton, when fresh. The specimen sent to him was
branched from the base and abnormal, so I doubt both his suggested
alternatives, H. irriguum, H. Adlerzw.”—-K. S. MarsHaty, ‘ Not
H. diaphanoides, Lindeb.”—E. F. Linton.

REPORT FOR 1912. 265

Hieracium gothicum, Fr. [Ref. No. 3741.] Locally plentiful by
streamlet about a mile and a half from Capel Curig, on the way
to Llyn Ogwen, Carnarvon, v.-c. 49, July 23, 1912. Styles yellow ;

ligules glabrous-tipped.—E. 8. Marsuatt “The specimens are
weak compared with Yorkshire and North Lancashire examples.”—
J. Cryer. “TI agree.”—E. F. Linton.

Mreracvcum sparsifolium, Lindeb, var. placerophyllum, Dahlst.
Great Scar Limestone, Ling Gill, v.-c. 64, alt. 900 feet, Aug 10, 1912.
In great abundance on the banks of a mountain stream.—J. CRYER.
‘‘ A very good example of this variety.”—-E. F. Linron. “Just like
Ley’s specimens from Chapel-le-Dale.”—E. S. MarsHatu.

Hieracium sparsifolium, Lindeb., var. strigosum, Ley.’ On rocky
side of a hill through which a railway tunnel is pierced, near Gala-
shiels, Roxburgh, v.-c. 80, altitude 494 feet, 1912.—I. M. Haywarp.
‘“‘T should say this comes under /H. vulgatum, Fr.”—J. Cryer. “#7.
vulgatum, Fr., var. seywnctum, W. R. L.”—E. F. Linton.

Hieracium ? [Ref. No. 4776.] Botley, 8. Hants., June 1912.
—G.C. Drucr. “HH. rigidum, Hartm., var. scabrescens, Dahlst.”—E.
S. Marswatyt. “HH. tridentatum, Fr., probably var. setigerwm, Ley.”
—J. Cryer. ‘Under H. tridentatum and if the styles were yellow
and not livid, var. acrifoliwm, Dahlst., rather than type.’—E. F.
Linton.

Mreracium umbellatum, L., var. coronopifolium, Fr. Sand dunes
near Freshfield, 8. Lanes., v.-c. 59, Aug. 1912. Two, if not more,
forms of this species occur on the Lancashire sand dunes. These
specimens do not seem to agree well with the plant recently distri-
buted as var. dunale, which Mr Druce states is the plant we have been
calling var. coronopifolium.—J. A. WHEELDON. ‘“ Perhaps right (as a
narrow-leaved form), though it is quite as near var. linarw/folium,
Wallr.”—E. 8. Marswaty. ‘I should say var. linarifolium, Wallr.
In my specimen the leaf margins are strongly revolute.”—J. Cryer.
‘May be placed under var. coronopifolium, but towards the type.” —
KE. F. Linton.

Hieracium ? Great Scar Limestone, Skirethornes, v.-c. 64,
altitude 700 feet, July 1912. After comparing a considerable number
of specimens with authentic H. Lintoni, Ley. (H. sagittatum, Lindeb.,
var. maculigerum, W. R. J..), I am strongly of opinion that the above
is a robust specimen of H. Lintonz, Ley. Some specimens have hairy
and not very glandular phyllaries, others have ‘numerous glandular’
phyllaries.—J. Cryer. “I think you are right.-—E. F. Linton.

266 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

Note on Report 191], p. 105.

Mieracium crocatum, Fr.—J. Cryer. Suggested by E. 8. Mar-
shall to be H. corymbosum, var. salicifolium, Lindeb., is considered
by the Rev. E. F. Linton to be H. crocatum, Fries.

Hypochaeris glabra, L. Frilford, Berks, July 1912. When I was
working this area twenty years ago, I did not observe this plant, the |
locality then being occupied by a rabbit-warren in which little save
Senecio Jacobaea, Carduus nutans and Echium appeared. Now, the
rabbits being reduced in number, I was amazed to see the ground
covered with this species intermixed with Potentilla argentea, ete.
But on visiting the spot a month later, the ground had been ploughed
and only few specimens could be seen.—G. C. Drucr. ‘“ Also from
Lancresse Common, Guernsey, July 31, 1912.”—W. C. Barron.

Leontodon hispidum, L., forma. Downs round Winchester, South
Hants, v.-c. 11, June 1912.—-J. Comper. ‘‘ Phyllaries practically
glabrous, but for the pale ciliation at and near the tips. I cannot name
this.,—E. 8. Marsnatyt. “Notwithstanding the nearly glabrous
phyllaries, Dr Thellung only labels it Z. hispidwm, L.”—G. C. Druce.

Leontodon hispidum, W., var. glabratum, Gren. and Godr.?
[Ref. No. 346.] Meadow grass, Malvern Wells, v.-c. 37.—-Coll., R. F.
Townprow. Comm., 8. H. BickHam. ‘“ Feuilles, scape et péricline
glabres ou parsemés de quelques poils, ceux-ci parfois simples.”—Gren.
and Godr. ‘“ Rouy (f7. Fr., x., 31, 1908) calls this Z. protevformis, Vill.,
var. glabratus, G. and G., and the description given would seem to
apply to Mr Bickham’s plant.”—C. E. Satmon. “ZL. hispidum, L.,
var. vulgaris (Koch) Bischoff, acced. ad var. pseudocrispum, F.
Schultz.”"—A. THELLUNG.

Leontodon hirtum, L., var. lasiolaenwm, Druce. |Ref. No. 345.]
Barnard’s Green, 8. Malvern, v.-c. 37, Sept. 17, 1912.—S. H. Bicxk-
HAM and R. F. Townprow. ‘Curious little plants, coming under
L. nudicaule, Banks and Solander. J do not know the variety, but
the heads are by no means ‘shaggy.’”—E. 8. MarsHauu. “ Yes ;
L. nudicaule, Banks, var. lastolaenwm (Bisch ).”—G. C. Druce.

Taraxacum ——. Cefn Cribeor and Penyfae Common, Bridgend,
v.-c. 41, May 1912. Probably true 7. palustre, DC. Outer bracts of
involucre adpressed, except in fruit, broad ; midrib of leaf red ; florets
with considerable amount of red at the tips; leaves variously cut.—
H. J. RippELspELL. ‘Outer phyllaries with a very narrow hyaline
border ; fruit very pale. 7. udum, Jord., I believe.”—-E. 8. MarsHatt.
“ 7’. palustre, DC.”—C E. Satmon. ‘‘ Dr OsTENFELD remarks, ‘ex aff.
T. spectabile, Dahlst.’”—G. C. Druce,

REPORT For 1912. 267

Taraxacum Sands of Barry Island, v.-c. 41, April 18, 1912.
Phyllaries vary considerably, from broad to nearly linear, glaucous to
green, erect to + reflexed. Growing with 7’. officinale, Weber, and
perhaps a series of hybrids between that and some other form, which,
however, I did not detect.—-H J. RippELspELL. “ Fruit brick-red ;
T’. erythrospermum, Andrz.”—K. 8S. MARSHALL.

Taraxacum ——. Turf of cliff top. Porthkerry, v.-c. 41, April 18,
1912. Apparently what we have been calling 7’. udum, Jord., though
now, I believe, we are to give it another name. These specimens
vary much in cutting of leaf, but not in character of phyllaries.—
H. J. RippEtspELL. ‘‘ Not determinable without fruit ; but it looks
like a small form of 7. udum, Jord.”—E. 8. MarsHaun. ‘“ Fruit
bright red. 7’. erythrospermum, Andrz., I believe.”—C. E. Saumon.

Taraxacum erythrospermum, Andrz. Shore dunes near North
Berwick, v.-c. 82, June 22, 1912.—Mr T. Cowan, jun. “One of my
plants had red, the other greyish-brown, achenes, 7’. laevigatum, DC.
It is a new county record for 82. Handel-Mazzetti makes laevigatum,
DC., and erythrospermum, Andrz., synonymous. (The _ British
laevigatum is referred to obliquum.)”—G. C. Drucre. ‘No; the fruit
is greyish brown, not red; 7. laevigatum, DC.”—E. 8. MarsHa.t.
“Fruit looks much too pale for erythrospermum, and I think this must
be laevigatum, DC.”—C. E. Satmon.

Lactuca virosa, L. Taplow, Bucks., Aug. 1912. This is the plant
with undivided leaves = var. wntegrifolia, 8. F. Gray, Not. Arr. in,
417, 1821, which is based on Lactuca sylvestris, folio non laciniato,
Ray’s Syn. 162, n. 3, 1724. It has proved constant in cultivation
here.—G. C. Druck.

Sonchus oleraceus, L. Seedlings. Askham Ironworks, v.-c. 69,

Aug. 19, 1912.—D. Lue.

Lobelia urens, L. Near Axminster, v.-c. 3, July 15, 1912.. See
Journ. Bot., 1912, p. 350.—H. J. Rippetspeuy. ‘ Carefully prepared
and very acceptable.”—J. CrYEr.

Campanula rapunculoides, L. | Windymains, Haddingtonshire,
v.-c. 82, Aug. 10, 1912.—M‘T. Cowan, jun.

Campanula rapunculoides, L. Alien. Waste ground, originally
sand dunes, Waterloo, 8. Lanes., v.-c. 59, July 1912. Spreads rapidly
by the roots, but as the flowers are always gathered, a few roots were
transplanted and flowered in the garden.—J. A. WHELDON. “ Yes,
it is a new county record for 59, where I saw it in 1911, but probably
it is of garden origin.” —G. C. DRUCE.

268 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

Legousta hybrida, Delarbre. Cornfield, Stanway, Essex N., v.-c.
19, June 11, 1912.—G. C. Brown. :

Trachelium coeruleum, L. Old wall, S. Peter Port, Guernsey,
Aug. 4, 1912.—W. C. Barron.

Arctostaphylos Uva-ursi, Spreng. 8.W. Yorkshire and N. Derby-
shire specimens, July 31, 1912. From two fresh localities recorded in
the Vaturalist, 1908, p. 288, by Dr Moss.—A. B. Jackson.

Calluna vulgaris, Hull, var. Hrikae, Aschers. Frilford Heath,
Berks, with the type, Aug. 1912. Also noticed on Formoyle Hill,
Londonderry ; at Rannoch, Argyle; Perth; Clova, Forfar; and
N.E. Yorkshire.—G. C. Drucz.

Calluna vulgaris, Hull, var. Hrikae, Aschers. Kynance Downs,
Lizard, v.-c. 1, Aug. 10, 1912. —C. C. Vieurs. ‘Yes; Dr Graebner
and I gathered it there in 191].”—G. C. Druce.

Calluna vulgaris, Hull, var. Hrikae (?). Kirby Moor, alt. 900 feet,
v.-c. 69, Oct. 2, 1912.--D. Lump. “No; type, Calluna vulgaris,
Hull.”—J. Cryer.

Pyrola rotundifolia, L., var. marituma, Kenyon. Sandhills, Fresh-
field, S. Lanes., v.-c. 59, Aug. 1912.—W. G. Travis.

Statice Armeria, Iu. Salt marsh, near Churchtown, 8. Lancs.,
v.-c. 59, Sep. 1912.—J. A. WueEtpon. “No; S. maritima, Mill, or
S. linearifolia, Laterr., but my specimens are too young to say which.”
—G. C. Druce.

Anagallis arvensis, L. [Ref. No. 889.] Pasture, Merton parish,
Surrey, Sept. 4, 1912. Prominent here were various Pimpernels :
solitary examples of dAnagallis femina, Mill. (A. ceerulea, Schreb.) ;
A. carnea, Schrank; and A. arvensis, in great abundance, both of
the normal plant and a pink-flowered form, and in lesser quantity, the
purple-flowered plant, now distributed. Besides the colour of the
corolla, it is also characterised by the circumstance of the upper leaves
being in whorls of three, instead of being opposite, thus combining
the marks of the sub-var. violacea, Delac., and var. verticillata, Diard.,
= var. ternata, Williams. Mr Williams (Prod. Florae Brit., part 7,
p. 430) implies that the variety with ternate leaves is a smaller and
much more compact plant. Observation in the field shows that
towards the close of the summer, it is usual for the lengthening stems
of Anagallis arvensis to develop the leaves in whorls of three.—C. E.
Britton. “Flowers blue, but the hairs on corolla are apparently

REPORT FoR 1912. 269

3-celled and clavate, etc., and, following Mr Edwards (Journ. Bot.,
1906, p. 368), one would class this as a blue A. arvensis, and not
caerulea. As regards the stem character given (l.c.), I have certainly
found good arvensis with either ascending or erect stems.—C. E.
Satmon. ‘ Unfortunately my specimen consists of only one piece,
about fifteen inches long, unbranched, evidently part of a large plant.
IT cannot think it to be restricted A. arvensis, L., which I have never
seen with blue flowers, or with such a habit. The characters, though
they do not fully coincide, agree best with the description and remarks
on A. latifolia, L., in Williams’ Prod. Fl. Brit., part 7, pp. 431-2.
Whether this identification is correct or not, I am unable to say ;
but Mr Britton’s handsome plant is neither typical A. arvensis nor
typical A. foemina, Mill.,—K. 8. Marsnauty. “Surely this has
nothing to do with A. latifolia, L.” —G. C. Druce.

Fraxinus excelsior, L. Semi-pendulous. Aug. 23, 1912, Elwes and
Henry in Trees of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. iv., p. 868, mention
a form of the weeping ash, called by Loudon the Kincairney Ash
which grew in the parish of Caputh, near Dunkeld, Perthshire, and
had alternately pendulous and upright branches. I enclose leaves, 2
fruits, and two photos of one growing in Bucks, the most marked of
several similar trees, occurring occasionally about Long Down Hill
and the Icknield Way in the parishes of Risborough and Kimble. Do
they resemble the Kincairney Ash ?—F. L. Foorp-Ketcery.

Fraxinus excelsior, L. Seedlings. Orchard, Askham, v.-c. 69,
Aug. 28, 1912.—D. Lume.

Cicendia pusilla, Griseb. Damp ground near Fort Doyle, Guern-
sey, July 25, 1912. In considerable numbers over a limited area, a
short distance from the spot where it was originally found. Also at
the second locality noted by Mr Marquand in less quantity.—W. C.
Barton. ‘ After a lapse of many years Lady Davy rediscovered this
species in 1911, and Mr Marquand tells me it was fairly plentiful in
1912 over the very limited area where it grows in Guernsey. Mem-
bers will be glad of this rarity.” —G. C. Druce.

Cynoglossum montanum, L. Mickleham, Surrey, May 30, 1912.
The leaves become extremely thin and papery in the press, and I
regret that several of them have become broken.—C. E. Saumon.

Symphytum peregrinum, Ledeb. [Ref. No. 6712.] Damp hedge,
about four miles from Matlock, on the way to Ashborne Derby,
in great quantity, June 1912.—G. C. Druce. “ Right.”—C.
BUCKNALL.

270 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

Symphytum Ditch near Unstead Bridge, near Godalming,
Surrey, v.-c. 17, May 1912.—J. Comper. “SS. peregrinum, Ledeb.
The calyx segments are not so acute as usual, but similar plants are
met with occasionally.”—C. BucKNALL.

x Symphytum discolor, C. Bucknall, = S. officunale, var. ochro-
leucum x S. peregrinum. Bank of the Land Yeo stream near Flax
Bourton, N. Somerset, June 1912. Specimens approved by Mr
Bucknall. See Journ. Bot., 1912, p. 333.—J. W. Waite.

x Symphytum densiflorum, C. Bucknall, = S. officinale, B pur-
pureum x > peregrinum. Bank of the Land Yeo stream near
Gatcombe Mill, N. Somerset. Specimens approved by Mr Bucknall.
June 1912. See Journ. Bot., Nov. 1912, p. 334.—J. W. Wurrs.

x Symphytum lilaconum, Bucknall, =S. officinale, a ochroleucum,
x B purpureum > x S. peregrinum. Bank of the Land Yeo stream
near Wraxall, N. Somerset, June 13, 1912. Specimens passed by
Mr Bucknall. See Journ. Bot., Nov. 1912, p. 334.—J. W. Wuirs.

Pulmonaria angustifolia x officinalis. [Ref. No. 352.] Under-
down, Ledbury, April 21, 1912. For a dozen years at least I have
grown P. angustifolia (origin, near Lyndhurst) in one spot in
my garden while P. officunalis has grown semi-wild in a shrubbery
a quarter of a mile away. I noticed no hybrids until this year.
P. arvense, a garden flower, which I have grown for twenty years,
also produced this year for the first time a hybrid with P. officinalis. —
S. H. Bickuam. “A very similar natural hybrid once occurred in
my garden at Milford between P. angustifolia, from the New Forest,
and P. officinalis, var. mmaculata, Opiz (P. obscura, Dumort.), from
Burgate Wood, E. Suffolk; it soon died out.”—E. 8S. MarsHatt.
‘‘ Haud impossibile.”—A. THELLUNG.

Myosotis sylvatica, Hoffm. In a wood near Great Tew, Oxford.
This is extensively planted in the Park, and probably it has accident-
ally spread to this place; but it is not a native of the county. May
1912.—G. C. Druce.

Iinaria purpurea x repens, nov. hybr. x L. Domini. [Ref.
No. 4852.] See Report 1912, pp. 168-169. On rockwork in my garden
at Oxford, Aug. 1912.—G. C. Druce.

Linaria minor, Desf. This plant appeared on the embankment of
the Midland Railway at Armley, near Leeds, last year. This year I
traced it in patches with short intervals from Armley to Carnforth a
distance of about 60 miles.—J. Cryer.

REPORT FoR 1912. 271

Scrophularia alata, Gilib. [Ref. No. 890.] Abundant in dens of
Pitairlie and Craig Mill, Forfarshire, v.-c. 90, N.C.R., October 9,
1912.—R. and M. Corstorphine. ‘“ Yes, and a new county record
extending its northern range from Fife to Forfar.”——G. C. Drucs.

Mimulus moschatus, Dougl. This well-known garden plant, a
native of Western North America, was completely naturalised by the
road-side but near a house, near Pentre, Denbigh, July 1912.—G. C.
DRvcE.

Veronica Anagallis-aquatica, L. = V. Anagallis, Jacq. [Ref. No.
4911.] This is the true plant, as restricted by German authors,
having pale blue flowers, crowded racemes, and ascending fruit-stalks.
In the swift chalk stream which divides Bucks and Beds, near
Eddlesborough, June 1912 (See Aeport 1911, pp. 26-27). Also
from Wendlebury, Oxon. [Ref. No. 4842], June 1912.—G. C. Druce.
“ Although not so labelled by Mr Druce, this would seem to be his
var. glandulosa.” —J. A. WHELDON.

Veronica Anagallis, I.., proper. June 29 and Aug. 20, 1912. On
swampy ground near the confluence of the Ash Brook and Ippollitts
Brook, Hitchin, Herts. Annual; flowers blue ; pedicels glandular. If
V. Anagallis-aquatica, L., is split, what becomes of var. montioides,
Boiss.? V. Anagallis, L., occurs on Oughton Head Common, and J.
aquatica, Bernh., on Caldwell Common, both near Hitchin.—J. E.
Lirtie. “ Yes, and as the rachis is glandular like the specimens from
Oxford and Bucks, it is the var. glandulosa. Montioides, Boiss., is only
an annual form and not a variety.”—G.C. Drucre. ‘Surely not an
annual as stated. It would be an advantage to the Club if Mr Druce
could oblige us with descriptions of restricted V. Anagallis, and of
our more common plant, V. aquatica, Bernh. The latter varies in hue;
usually the flowers are bluish lilac, but I have occasionally seen them
pink or flesh-coloured.”—E. 8. Marsuauu. ‘The descriptions of the
two plants are given in Report 1911, pp. 26-27, but on line 5 from
bottom of p. 26, ‘dense’ should read ‘laxer.’ Annual forms (var.
montioides, Boiss.) occur, but the normal plant is perennial.”—G. C.
Druce.

Veronica Anagallis, var. glandulosa. Gleaston Beck, Urswick,
v.-c. 69, Oct. 4, 1912. The colour of the flowers was pale lilac with
darker veins. Many of the plants were quite 2 feet high. The
glands seem to be confined to the infloresence; the stem, leaves and
bracteoles seem to be without them.—D. Lums. “Looks different
from Mr Druce’s plant, having broader sepals and relatively shorter
pedicels. Inflorescence long and dense-flowered as in V. Anagallis,
but the pedicles appear to become horizontal ultimately, or even

Die THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

slightly decurved. Seems, however, nearest to V. Anagallis, without
being so typical as Mr Druce’s specimen.”-——J. A. WHELDON
‘‘ Abnormal specimens, and although probably Anagallis, I do not
venture to speak positively.” —G. C. Drucer.

Euphrasia nemorosa, H. Mart., var. A condensate, strong grow-
ing form, abundant on the Barton Cliffs, Hordle, 8. Hants, July 28,
1912.—J. C. Menvintn. “T incline to think this an extreme form of
E. curta, Wettst., var. glabrescens, Wettst. The leaves are not quite
glabrous, which Wettstein, in his Monograph, says that they always
are in &. nemorosa. Similar plants were indeed named nemorosa
by Mr Townsend, but a great deal of what he so called agrees with
authentically determined #. curta, var. glabrescens. I think that
Mr Bicknall relies on a set of specimens given him by Mr Townsend ;
but Wettstein’s opinion carries greater weight, and should be accepted
in preference.” —E. 8. MarsHatt.

Euphrasia curta, Wettst., var. b. glabrescens, Wettst. Grassy
heath 30 feet above sea level, The Bout, Veness, Orphir, Mainland,
Orkney, July 19, 1912. As far as I am able to judge, they should be
referred to H. curta, Wettst., var. glabrescens ; though none of my
plants, so determined by Professor Wettstein himself, have such
remarkably large stem leaves. However, I do not see how they can
be placed elsewhere. As he remarks in his Monograph, this variety
is more or less intermediate between Z. curta and #. nemorosa.”—
H. H. Jounston. ‘Mixed specimens.”—C. H. OsTENFELD.

Euphrasia gracilis, Fr. (fide E. 8. Marshall). Grassy banks at
burn side, 15 feet above sea level, Burn of Ore, Waas, Hoy, Orkney,
July 16, 1912.—H. H. Jonnsron. ‘ Yes.”—C. H. OstTENFELD.

Euphrasia. Heath on hill side, 320 feet above sea level, Brunt
Hill, Stromness, Mainland, Orkney, Aug. 23, 1912. The Rev. E. S.
Marshall writes :—‘ Difficult to name accurately, being starved.
T incline to think it a reduced state of #. gracilis, Fr., with rather
crowded leaves; the very small flowers favour this. If not, it
is small #. curta, var. glabrescens, Wettst.—H. H. Jounston.
“ B. gracilis, Fr..—C. H. OstenFe.p.

Euphrasia gracilis, Fr. (fide E. 8. Marshall). Heath at burn
side 10 feet above sea level. Pegah Burn, Waas, Hoy, Orkney,
August 7, 1912.—H. H. Jounsron. ‘“ Yes.”—C. H. OsTENFELD.

Euphrasia gracilis, Fr. (fide E. 8. Marshall). Heathery banks at
burn side, 240 feet above sea level. North Dale, Waas, Hoy, Orkney,
August 7, 1912.—H. H. Jonnston. ‘“ Yes.”—C. H. OsTENFELD.

REPORT FoR 1912. 2

Euphrasia scottica, Wettst. Heath on hill side, 310 feet above sea
level, North Dale, Waas, Hoy, Orkney, August 7, 1912. The Rev.
E. 8. Marshall writes :—‘This has the habit and general appearance
of #. scottica, Wettst., and I think that it is best so named ; material
rather young, and not in fruit.—H. H. Jounston. “Is £. gracilis,
Fr.”—C. H. OstEnFE.p.

Huphrasia curta, Wettst., var. b. glabrescens, Wettst. Damp
pasture on hill side, 300 feet above sea level, Wart Hill, Hoy,
Orkney, Aug. 15, 1912. Rev. E. S. Marshall writes:—‘I think
this is a form of Huphrasia curta, var. glabrescens, Wettst., with
handsome, violet-blue flowers. —H. H. Jounsron. ‘2?”—C. H.
OSTENFELD.

Euphrasia curta, Wettst. (fide E. 8S. Marshall). Heathery pasture,
90 feet above sea level, Black Crag, Stromness, Mainland, Orkney,
Aug. 19, 1912.— H. H. Jounston. “Not #. curta.”—C. H.
OsTENFELD.

Bartsia Odontitis, Huds., var. verna, Reichb. [Ref. No. 5231.]
Balgavies, Forfar, Sept. 1912.—G. C. Druce.

Rhinanthus. Meadow, on Tidenham Chase, v.-c. 34, June 14,
1912. I believe &. stenophyllus—H. J. RipDELSDELL. ‘“ Very
young; but the presence of intercalary leaves indicates £. steno-
phyllus, Schur.—E. 8. MarsHaL.t.

Rhinanthus? stenophylius, Schur. Alluvial meadow, near Penarth,
v.-c. 41, June 3, 1912.—H. J. Rippewspetn. “No; only Crista-
gali, I think ; the Tidenham Chase Rhinanthus may be stenophyllus,
but the specimens are poor.” —G. C. Druce.

Utricularia minor, L. Shallow pools in a swamp, 160 feet above
sea level, at foot of north-north-west slope of Cringla Fiold, Sand wick,
Mainland, Orkney, Aug. 26, 1912. A new Orkney station for this
species discovered on the above mentioned date by H. H. Jounsron.
“Yes, but not in good condition to determine.”-—A. BENNETT.

Mentha longifolia, Huds. [Ref. No. 5229.) Glen Ogilvy, Forfar.
Also seen by the South Esk, near Montrose. Similar to the plant
sent by Mr A. Wilson from Dunbarney, Perth, to the Club in 1906,
but as I then remarked ‘the leaves are too broad and the serratures
too faint for mollissima, Borck.’ It also closely resembles the plant
sent as MM. candicans, Crantz, by Shoolbred and Marshall (No. 2178),
from the Brodie Burn, near Forres, Report 1898, 584, but it is not IZ
candicans, aS understood by the Austrian botanist. The smell is

274 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

quite disagreeable so that it can hardly have been used for culinary
purposes, nor do I see evidence of a rotundifolia parentage. It is
allied to the var. pachylodes, Briq. Lab. Alp. Marit., 1891, 581, but I
await M. Briquet’s determination.—G. C. Drucse. “This looks
interesting but my example is only in young bud so it is impossible to
compare it with the descriptions of the seventeen varieties mentioned
by Rouy. I presume Mr Druce has satisfied himself it is not one of
these.” —C. HE, Satmon.

Mentha longifolia, Huds., var. ? [Ref. No. 805.] Legaston
Quarry, near Arbroath, v.-c. 90, Sep. 19, 1912.—R. and M. Corstor-
PHINE. “TI think there must be rotundifolia in this, and I see there
is a var. oblongifolia, Strail, of which I do not possess a detailed descrip-
tion. I suppose this cannot be longifolia x rotundifolia Y’—C, EH. Sat-
Mon. “Near specimens named J. villosa by M. Malinvaud.”—G. C. |
Druce. “TI suggest a hybrid origin for this; viz., M. aquatica x .
longifolia.” —E. 8. Marsuaut. “Is W. villosa, Huds., = longifolia
x rotundifolia.”—A. THELLUNG.

Mentha longifolia, Huds., var. [Ref. No. 4944.] Near Kirkinner,
Wigton, growing with MM. spicata and the relics of cultivation,
July 1912. This very distinct Mint, quite unlike, in its long, narrow,
and sharply-toothed leaves, any in my collection, resembles J/. Vachol-
soniana, Strail, in the long plumose setaceous bracts. The leaves,
however, are sessile, not petiolate as in that plant, and have a
different outline. It is not sufficiently woolly to come under
mollissuma, Borck. I therefore propose to call it nov. var. salicifolra,
but await M. Briquet’s opinion before its publication.—G. C. Drucs.
‘“‘T presume this is one of the many named varieties of longifolia with
lanceolate leaves, but it is unknown to me. If of hybrid origin—and
a little more glabrous—the shape of the leaf would suggest longi-
Jolia x piperita.”—C. E. Satmon.

Mentha sativa, L. Probably a variety of M. paludosa, Sole.
When growing, looking more peculiar than when dried. Banks of
Rea Brook, Meole Brace, Shropshire, v.-c. 40, Sept. 14, 1912.—
J.C. Mervitt. “ Not paludosa, but one of the many forms of the
hybrid M. verticillata, perhaps best coming under the var. swb-
glabra, Baker.” —G. C. Drucr. “A glabrescent sativa -form
(M. aquatica x arvensis ).”—HK. 8. Marswatyt. “For paludosa the
upper whorls should be collected into a spike. This is not so in
my example, which seems certainly nearer rivalis. The leaves are
much more glabrous than usual, and it may be var. swbglabra, a form
I am not familiar with.”—C. E. Saumon.

x Mentha verticilata, var. paludosa, Sole. [Ref. No. 65.] Ditch,
Tiptree Heath, Essex N., v.-c. 19, Sept. 1, 1912. I sent specimens of

REPORT FOR 1912. 275

this gathering to Mr Druce in October, and he remarks ‘There seem
to be two varieties here, both probably x verticillata, but the one
with the long flowering stems is paludosa, Sole. The other is very
young and may be an arvensis form.’ The plants in this parcel grade
so imperceptibly into each other, and the wide based leaves are almost
exclusively on lateral shoots in mature pieces, so I suspect that these
broad-leaved specimens are specially strong, mere shade-grown young
plants which would on elongating come nearer type. This will be
obvious in examining the whole parcel but not single sheets, so hardly
worth publishing.—G. C. Brown. ‘My specimen comes under var.
paludosa, Sole, but mixed gatherings should not be sent.”—G. C.
Druce. “In var. paludosa, the upper whorls of the inflorescence are
collected into a spike. In my specimen the whorls are mostly
axillary. I should have thought best placed under M. sativa, L.,
which some authorities consider to be M/. aquatica x arvensis.” —A. B.
JACKSON.

Origanum vulgare, L., variety, floribus albis. Among debris of
old quarry, north side, Craig Breidden, Montgomeryshire, N. Wales,
Aug. 5, 1912. I sent a year or two ago to the Club a few examples
of this white flowered variety of the wild Marjoram, and now venture
to supplement them with others.—J. C. Menvitu. “ Yes, the var.
albiflorum, Lej. It appears to keep distinct in culture and almost
certainly hybridises with the type.”—G. C. Druce. “ An albino;
I have observed it, though rarely.”—E. 8. Marsnauu. “To be met
with frequently on the Great Scar Limestone in the West Riding of
Yorkshire.” —J. CrYEr.

Calamintha grandiflora, Moench. Border of wood, Apesdown,
Isle of Wight, v.-c. 10, Sept. 3, 1912.—W. C. Barron. “Yes;
Saturera grandiflora, Scheele.”—G. C. DRucE.

Calamintha montana, Lam. Leaves in May ; flowersin Aug. 1912.
Gt. Wymondley Road, Hitchin, Herts.—J. E. Lirrne. “Yes;
Satureia Calamintha, Scheele.”—G. C. Druce.

Calamintha Nepeta, Savi. Dry roadside bank, Haffield, near
Ledbury, v.-c. 36, Aug. 3, 1912.—S8. H. Bickuam. “ Yes; Satureia
Nepeta, Scheele.”——G. C. Druck.

Scutellaria galericulata, L., var. pubescens, Benth. Stony shore,
Fife coast, v.-c. 85, July 20, 1912. Fide A. Bennett.— McT.

Cowan, jun. “If correct, this is a pretty poor ‘variety,’ the
situation (a stony shore) quite accounts for the not very marked
pubescence.” —E. 8S. MarsHatu. ‘“ Yes; although not so hairy as my

Galloway specimens ; but the degree of pubescence is not a strong

276 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

character. This plant has a facies of its own quite unlike our river-
side specimens of the Midlands. I believe it to be a good variety, for
which I suggest the name /itoralis, characterised by its short
(15-25 cm.) stature, more crowded and somewhat smaller leaves, and
by its larger flowers with broader corolla-lip, and by its being more
pubescent than the type. I have it from the coast of Wigton, Kirk-
cudbright, Berwick, and from the shores of Loch Ness. Mutel, not
Bentham, is the authority for the var. pubescens. Even when our
Midland galericulata grows in brickwork, it is not like this plant.”—
G. C. DRuce.

Prunella laciniata, L. Pyrford golf course, Surrey. Detected by
the keen eyes of Lady Davy, and kindly shown by her to me, but the
plant was then going over, as the corollas appear to be of shorter
duration than those of vulgaris. July 1912.—Lady Davy and G. C.
DRUCE.

Stachys palustris x sylvatica = S. ambigua, Sm. Wet place by
railway station, Coniston, N. Lancs, v.-c. 69, Sept. 1912.—J. ComBer.
“Yes."—G. C. Druce. “Certainly; but considerably nearer to
S. palustris, which is unusual, according to my experience.”.—
EK. 8. MarsHatt. ‘“ Leaves much narrower and less cordate, and
petioles shorter, than in the plant figured in Smith’s Hnglish Botany,
plate 2089, but agrees with the figure in Reichenbach Jcones, vol. xviii.,
t. 715, II. This is probably a hybrid between the species named,
but much nearer S. palustris than S. sylvatica.” —A. B. Jackson.

Stachys * Hordle, Hants, Sept. 7, 1912. Sent for the
opinion of botanists. I have suggested S. Betonica x palustris on
the ground that the outline of the leaves seems intermediate, as well
as the arrangement of verticillasters in the head. It may be merely
an overgrown S. Setonica, due to the late season and excess of
moisture.—L. Cummine. ‘I fail to see the presence of S. palustris
in these specimens of Stachys officinalis, Trev.”—G. C. Drucr. “A
slender, drawn-up S. officinalis, Trev. (Betonica, Benth.), looking as if
it had grown among bushes, or in long grass. No sign of S.
palustris.” —K. S. Marsuauy. “Surely pure Betonica. Where is
palustris ?”—-C, E. Satmon. ‘TI do not see how this can be separated
from S. Betonica.”—A. B. Jackson.

Galeopsis intermedia, Vill. Hedgerow of G. N. Ry., Camb. Branch,
near Hitchin, Herts, July, Sept. and Oct. 1912.—J. E. Lirrze.
“ Under var. angustifolia, Ehrh.”—G. C. Drucr. “ G. Ladanum, L.,
ssp. angustifolia (Khrh.) Gaud., forma foliis latioribus leviter accedens
ad ssp. intermedium (Vill.) Brig.” —A. THELLUNG.

REPORT FOR 1912. DPT et

Galeopsis angustifolia, Ehrh. Cultivated ground near Hitchin,
Herts, Sep. 1912. The pubescence of the leaves varied greatly.
Some were quite grey (! G. canescens, Schultes) ; some much nearer to
G. intermedia. In two of the areas G. intermedia and G. angustifolia
both occurred with every stage of intermediate.—J. E. Lirrte.
“Very good var. canescens, Schultes.”—E. 8. MARSHALL.

Galeopsis Ladanum, L., var. [Ref. No. 5240.] Arable chalk
fields, Moulsford, Berks, Aug. 1912. I await M. Briquet’s determin-
ation.—G. C. Druce. “This is G. angustifolia, Ehrh., under var.
canescens, Schultes, though not extreme.”—E. 8. MarsHa.u.

Galeopsis Ladanum, L., var. intermedia (Vill). [Ref. No. 810.]
Waste ground near Friockheim, Forfarshire, v.-c. 90, Sep. 9, 1912.—
R. and M. CorstorpHine. ‘Yes, beautifully dried. I think G.
Ladanum, L. (sensu stricto) = G. intermedia, Vill.; a distinct
species.” —E. S. Marsnwaty. “G. Ladanum, L., ssp. wtermedia
(Vill.) Brig.” —A. THELLUNG.

Lamium. (?) Waste ground, Silverdale, v.-c. 60, June 1912.
Growing in close association with ZL. purpureum, L.—J. CRYEr.
“This is, I believe, a form of LZ. hybridum, Vill, simulating ZL.
molucellifolium, Fr. (untermedium, Fr.) in habit, but distinguishable
by the smaller corolla, with a short tube. I have plants like these
from near Wexford, Ireland.”—E. 8. MarsHaui. “TI should say L.
hybridum, grown in rich soil.”—J. A. WHeELpon. ‘I cannot see a
ring of hairs in the tube, so conclude this is L. inciswm.”—C. E.
Satmon. “L. hybridum, Vill., which antedates LZ. inciswm.”—G. C.
DRUCE.

Lamium hybridum, Vill. Cultivated ground, Hitchin, Herts,
March 1912. Cleistogamous state. The entomophilous state begins
about the end of April. The plant then is more ascending. | Dec.
9th. The plant is again in cleistogamous state.|—J. HE. Lirtie.
“Yes.” —E. 8. MARsHALL.

Lamium ampleaicaule, L., var. clandestinum, Reichb. (L. rudi-
mentarium, Pons.). Waste ground, Walton, 8. Lances., v.-c. 59, Aug.
1912.—J. A. WHeELpon. “ Reichenbach says (/7. Germ. Hacurs., 321,
1831)—‘Sub pluviis enatae plantulae saepe corollam non explicant :
L. amplexic. clandestinum, Reichb., Pl. Crit., viii., ic. 950.’ One would
imagine that a good deal of this form was produced in 1912 !’—C. E.
Satmon. “The clandestine condition of Labiates can scarcely be
called a variety.” —G. C. Druce.

278 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

Teucrium Botrys, L. Near Sapperton, v.-c. 33, Sep. 1912. Ceoll.,
W. J. Greenwood. See Journ. Bot. 1912, p. 315.—H. J. Rippets-
DELL.

Ajuga Chamaepitys, Schreb. Cultivated ground, near High Down,
Hitchin, Herts, Sep. 20, 1912. The scent of pine-oil is very noticeable
in the fresh plant. In another locality, near Hitchin, the plants were
very much smaller, and only occasionally branched.—J. E. Lrrrux.

Plantago Coronopus, L., var? |Ref. No. 4.] Sandy bank, St
Osyth Marshes, Essex N., June 25, 1912. Sandy bank dividing two
marshes, quite unmixed with the type which occurs abundantly on
sandy soil near by, and on other parts of the bank. The greatly
enlarged sepals can hardly be the effect of insect infestation, as there
was no mixture with the type in this patch, although I noticed a few
stray plants of the variety some yards away.—G. C. Brown. ‘I think
it is a monstrous condition, perhaps due to a gall. I have asked
Prof. Trail’s opinion. He says it is due to a mite, Hriophyes barroisii,
Focken.”—G. C. Drucr.

Plantago maritima, L., narrow-leaved form. Beach, Newquay,
West Cornwall, v.-c. 1, Sept. 1912.—C. C. Vieurs.

Plantago lanceolata, L. Waste ground, Askham, v.-c. 69, Aug. 9,
1912. Is this gall- influence, viviparity, monstrosity; or ‘what ).—
D. Lunes.

Plantago major, L., var. intermedia, Gilib. [Ref. No. 760.]
Pasture, Merton parish, Surrey, July 20, 1912.—C. E. Brirron.

Scleranthus annuus, L., dwarf form. Wall top, Haverthwaite,
N. Lancs, v.-c. 69, Sept. 1912.—J. Comper. ‘Var. hibernus,
Reichb. =S. biennis, Reuter.”,—E. S. Marsuauyu. “The situation
may account for this pretty, condensed state of annuus.”—C. E.
SALMON.

Scleranthus annuus, L., var. hibernus, Reichb. (S. biennis, Reuter.)
[Ref. No. 650.] Among turf, Ripley Green, Surrey, June 2, 1912.—
C. E. Brirron. “I think this Surrey form which I have collected
with Lady Davy to be a distinct variety, but I have not yet been
able to match it.”—G. C. Drucr. “This is interesting. I admit the
calyx segments of fruit are shorter than those in Mr Comber’s plant,
but I think this should perhaps be left under type. All my examples
of this variety have a different habit with extremely short internodes,
and even shorter calyx teeth.”—-C. E. Satmon. ‘This seems to me
to be the type rather than the variety; the root is apparently

REPORT FOR 1912. 279

annual, and I have never seen biennis so large or so spreading.”—
K. 8. MarsHAL.t.

Chenopodium opulifolium x C. serotinum. 1 Fazackerley, South
Lanes., v.-c. 59, Sept. 1912. The 20 samples collected, large though
some of them are, are only side branches from one immense plant, and
as many were left to ripen fruit, but were cut down by the proprietor
of the field. The two suggested parents were present, and this gigantic
individual seemed to be almost exactly intermediate.—J. A. WHELDON.
“No, this is C. opulifolvwm, Schrad., with somewhat greener foliage.”
—J. Murr. ‘“ My set of Chenopodium is at Cambridge just now, so
I cannot compare this with specimens ; but I think that it is only C.
opulrfolium. A hybrid with C. ficifoliwm would, surely, have much
longer leaves; and I can detect no sign of this species in the plant
before me. C’. album x opulifolium is possible, but not probable.”—
HK. 8. MarsHALt.

Chenopodium album, L. [Ref. No. 5223.] Port Meadow, Oxford,
Aug. 1912.—G. C. Druce. “C. album, L., type.”—J. Murr.

Chenopodium serotinum, L. Canal bank, near Ford, 8. Lancs.,
v.-c. 59, Aug. 24, 1912.—W. G. Travis. ‘No, this is C. album, L.,
sub-species viridescens, St Am., slightly verging towards sub-species
subficifoliwm, Murr.”—J. Murr. ‘No; an album variety, probably
under C. paganwm, Reichb. The application of the name C.
serotinum, L., to C. ficifoliwm, Sm., is very questionable indeed.”—E.
S. MARSHALL.

Chenopodium botryodes, Sm. In quantity round a pool on Lihou
Island, Guernsey, Aug. 13, 1912. The small upright plants were
growing in water at the edge; the larger procumbent plants on the
shingle near. The largest I saw was 30 inches in diameter.—W. C.
Barton. ‘Yes; typical.”—E. 8. MarsHauu. “ Yes ; the only habitat
in the Channel Isles. Rouy sinks it to a variety as crasstfolius in the
Flore de France, but I think without justification.” —G. C. Druce.

Atriplex hastata, I, var. prostrata, Bouch.? Sandy ground,
Formby, 8. Lancs., v.-c. 59, June 29, 1912.—W. G. Travis. “Too
young to name definitely ; but I never saw A. hastata anything like
so slender or so small leaved. Probably a maritime form of A. patula.”
—KE. 8. MARsHALL.

Salicornia perennis, Mill. Mud flats, Hayling Island, South
Hants., v.-c. 11, Aug. 1912.—J. Compmr. “ Yes.”—G. C. Druce.
“Doubtless right, but gathered too early.”-—H, 8, MarsHALtt.

280 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

Salicornia ? (Plant grey green). Amongst mud and stones,
constantly submerged, Hayling Island, South Hants, v.-c. 11, Aug.
1912.—J. Comper. ‘A small state of S. ewropaea, L., forma stricta,
Moss.” —E. 8. MarsHatt.

Salicormia ? (Plant bright green, turning red). On grass, sel-
dom submerged, mud flats, Walney Island, N. Lancashire, v.-c. 69,
Sep. 1912.—J. Comper. ‘Small form of S. europaea, L.”—-C. E.
Moss. “3S. europaea, L., forma patula, Moss, I think. Dr Moss tells
me that he has occasionally seen this species turning red late in the
season ; usually it becomes yellowish.” —E. 8. MarsHAtt.

Salicornia europaea, L., forma stricta, Moss. Maud flats, constantly
submerged, Hayling Island, South Hants., v.-c. 11, Aug. 1912.—J.
Comper. “Of the two specimens before me one is S. ewropaea x.
ramosissima ; the other may be this hybrid ; but if so it is nearer 5.
ewropaea. This hybrid is rather common on the shores of Hayling
Island.”—C. E. Moss. ‘“ Yes, it abounds there.”—E. 8. MarsHAtt.

Salicornia ewropaea, L., forma stricta, Moss. (Plant bright green).
Mud flats, constantly submerged, Walney Island, North Lancashire,
v.-c. 69, Sep. 1912.—J. ComBrr. ‘ Yes.”—C. E. Moss.

Salicornia prostrata, Pall. On mud, seldom submerged, Walney
Island, N. Lancashire, v.-c. 69, Sep. 1912.—J. ComBer. “SS. ewropaea,
L., forma patula.”—C. E. Moss.

Salicornia disarticulata, Moss. [Ref. No. 957.] Brightlingsea
Creek, Essex N., v.-c. 19, Sep. 28, 1912.—C. E. Brirron. “The
single specimen before me shows traces of S. gracillima. 8S. disarticu-
lata hybridises rarely. The other specimens I have seen which suggest
hybridisation are some on a sheet in Herbariwm Linton. Mr Linton’s
specimens exactly match this one of Mr Britton’s. Some of the other
herbaceous species of Salicornia hybridise very freely.”—C. E. Moss.
“Excellent specimens, and very typical.” —E. 8S. MarsHa.t.

Polygonum lapathifolium x Persicaria. Ditch by Radyr Church,
v.-c. 41, Aug. 1912. Spike greenish pink; glands of perianth few ;
perianth veins sometimes well marked; lower ocreae more or less
fringed. Intermediate and probably the hybrid. The plants sent
are all of one stage, but others occurred of intermediate character.—
H. J. RippetspEuu. ‘This is a nearly eglandular state of P. lapathi-
folium and but for the well developed seeds it might have been
regarded as a cross between that and P. Persicaria. Despite the
strongly ciliate ochreae and the paucity of glands on the perianth,
I think it must go to P. lapathifoliwm on account of the seeds, which

- REPORT FOR 1912. 281

have a depression on both faces, and no raised line as in P. Persicaria.”
—J. A. WHeELDon. “Is this not a form of P. lapathifoliwm accord-
ing to British authors; there are a few glands on the perianth, and
the seed is not trigonous.”——G. C. Drucker.

Polygonum Persicaria, I, var. % [Ref. No. 37.] Grand Havre,
Guernsey, Aug. 14, 1912. A remarkably close procumbent plant
growing at the side of a cart track—about forty plants all of the
same growth.—W. C. Barron. “This probably comes under the
var. ruderale (Salisb. Prod., 259), Meisner in DC. Prod., 118.”—
G. C. Druce.

Polygonum minus, Huds. Shallow ditches, Barnard’s Green, near
Malvern, v.-c. 37, Sept. 17, 1912.—S. H. Bickuam and R. F.
TownpDRow.

Polygonum aequale, Lindm. ([Ref. No. 5226.) Near Lacey
Green, Bucks, Aug. 1912.—G. C. Druce. Determined by Dr Linp-
MAN to be P. aequale x calcatwm.

Polygonum aviculare, L., var. [Ref. No. 44.] Lerée, Guernsey,
Aug. 13, 1912.—W.C. Barton. “Is a form of P. aequale, Lindm.”—
C. E. LinpMan.

Polygonum aequale, Lindm. (?). [Ref. No. 4908.] Loch Leven,
Kinross, Aug. 1912.—G. C. Druce. “Is P. heterophyllum, Lindm.,
var. boreale, Lange.” —C. LINDMAN.

Polygonum aequale, Lindm. [Ref. No. 5001.] Stanton St. John,
Oxford, with the foregoing and perhaps a hybrid of it, Aug. 1912.—
C. Linpman and G. C. Druce. Dr Lindman later on reported that
‘T now prefer to say P. heterophyllum, paulo cum P. aequala mixtum.

Polygonum heterophyllum, Lindm. [Ref. No. 5002.] Near Stow
Wood, Oxon, Aug. 1912.—C. Linpman and G. C. Deuce. “ Yes; var.
genuinum (excepto perigonio paulum abbreviato).”—C. LinpMAN.

Polygonum heteropyllum, Lindm. [Ref. No. 5000.] Stanton St.
John, Oxford, Aug. 1912, see Report 1912, p. 177.—C. LinpMan and
G. C. Druck. “Yes, genuinwm.”—C. LINDMAN.

Polygonum heterophyllum, Lindm. (?) [Ref. No. 5009.] — Fril-
ford, Berks, Aug. 1912.--G. C. Druce. “A form of P. aequale,
Lindm.”—C. LinpMaNn.

Polygonum aviculare, L., var. agrestinum (Jord.). Stream bank,
Mollington Meadows, near Chester, June 19, 1912, and lane side,

282 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

near Mickle Trafford Station, Cheshire, v.-c. 58, July 16, 1912.—C.
WatTERFALL. ‘ Bad specimens of P. heterophyllum, Lindm.’—G. C.
DRUCE.

Polygonum Roberti, Lois. Duddon Estuary, Askham, v.-c. 69,
Sep. 13, 1912. I can’t understand why the books say that the leaves
of this plant are flat. In Bab. Manual the word is in italics. Mr
Hodson, Flora of Cumberland, says. that the plant which called into
existence the trivial Rai, was gathered on a part of the Cumberland
coast not far from here.—D. Lump. ‘Yes, a new county record
for 69.”"—G. C. Drucz. “Is not this P. Rati, Bab., rather than P.
Roberti, Loisel.t The latter is a small-fruited (2 2 to 5 mm. long) plant
with a distribution distinctly south European. Mr Lumb’s plant
possesses large (4 x 3mm.) exserted fruit. In descriptions of P.
Rais, it is usually stated that the leaves are flat, but my experience
leads me to believe that the margins of the leaves may frequently be
recurved, as in P. litorale, Link, and Mr Lumb’s plant shows these
recurved margins.”—C. E. Brirron. “P. Raw, Bab. Loiseleur's
species is a plant of southern Europe.”—E. S. Marsiatt.

Rumex crispus, L., var. trigranulatus, Syme. ‘Slacks’ in the
sand dunes, Birkdale, 8. Lanes., v.-c. 59, July 7, 1912.”—J. A.
Wueupon. ‘“ Yes; trigranulatus is acommon littoral form.”—G. C.

Druck and E. S. MarRsHALL.

Rumex crispus x sanguineus, var. viridis (Rf. crispus x nemorosus ).
[Ref. No. 779.| Lower Morden, Surrey, July 24, 1912.—C. E. Brirron.
“ Looks right ; but gathered a for tnight too early to show the fruiting
character.” B.S. Marswaun. “ Yes ; apparently the x &. Sngoreiee
Haussknecht.”—G. C. Druce.

Rumex rupestris, Le Gall. Origin, Whitesand Bay, Cornwall,
cult., at Clifton, July 1912.—J. W. Warre.

Rumex Acetosella, L., forma stolonifera. The normal form is
abundant on a stretch of sandy railway bank about seven miles from
Rugby. In places the surface soil seems composed of engine cinders,
_ and on these patches alone the plant becomes stoloniferous, plants
growing on sandy soil a foot away being quite normal.—L. CumMune.
‘The rhizomatous character of this species has been alluded to
(Journ. Bot., 1892, p. 262) by the Rev. E. F. Linton. As my specimen
is only the male plant, I am unable to say to which variety it belongs.”
-—G.C. Druce. ‘ The species is normally stoloniferous, as those whose
gardens it invades have too good cause to know.”—EH. 8. MARSHALL
and J. A. WHELDON,

REPORT FoR 1912. 283

Rumex Acetosella, L., var. acetoselloides, Bal. | Nash Common,
Bucks, June 1912. In this form the calyx is not adherent to the seed,
as in angvocarpus, which is the common British plant.—G. C. Druce.

Euphorbia dulcis, L. |Ref. No. 775.|] In large patches, quite
naturalised, by the banks of the Isla, above the Kirkton, v.-c 90,
May 21, 1912.—R. and M. Corsrorpuine. ‘“ Yes.”—G. C. Druce
and A. THELLUNG.

Euphorbia Paralias, L. For two or three miles between Haverigg
and Millom, Cumberland, this plant grows in the greatest abundance ;
it and the Marram constitute almost the whole of the vegetation.
Sept. 28, 1912.—D. Lump.

Euphorbia portlandica, L. Rocks above Oddicombe Beach, April 8,
and from dry gravelly hillside meadow, Torquay, 8. Devon, v.-c. 3,
April 17, 1912.—C. WarTERFALL.

Buxus sempervirens, L. Chalk Hills, Happy Valley, Kimble,
Bucks, May and June 1912. I thought some members might like to
have these specimens of box with fruit and flower from this ‘locus
classicus.’ In the box woods in the Happy Valley and on the Velvet
Lawn (both in Chequers Park) the trees grow often 20 feet high.
The trunk of one in our garden has a girth of 6 feet just above the
ground, after which it divides. The fruit is popularly called here
‘ Pots and Kettles. —F. L. Foorp-Ketcey.

Mercurialis perennis, L., var. ovata, Steud. [Ref. No. 347.]
Shrubbery, Malvern Wells, v.-c. 37, April 26, 1912; coll, R. F.
Towndrow ; comm., 8S. H. Bickuam. “If correctly named, surely a
very weak variety.”—G. C. Druce.

Ulmus scabra, Miller, forma. [Ref. No. U 1.] By Feeder, Llan-
daff, v.-c. 41, May 11 and Aug. 13, 1912. A long-leaved form ; also
U 2, field near Fairwater, v.-c. 41, April 27 and Aug. 14, 1912.—
H. J. Rippentspevt. “Yes; U. montana, Stokes.”_-A. Henry.
“Yes; I think under U. scabra, Mill (U. glabra, Huds.).”—A. B.
J ACKSON.

Ulmus montana, With. Seedlings. Millwood, Dalton-in-Furness,
v.-c. 69, Sept. 30, 1912.—D. Lums. “Seedlings are difficult to
identify with certainty. The U. montana seedling has two small
leaves, and is probably a hybrid.’—A. Henry.

Ulmus scabra, Mill. [Ref. No. U 3.] Road from Radyr to Fair-
water, v.-c. 41, April 27 and Aug. 14, 1912.—H. J. RippELspE LL.

284 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

“This is not true U. montana, Stokes, as it has leaves smooth and with
longer petioles than usual. It probably is of hybrid origin, U. natens
x U. montana, but very close to U. montana in samara, thick
pubescent twigs, buds.”—A. Henry. ‘“‘ Very imperfect material, but
apparently coming under U. scabra, Miller (U. glabra, Huds., U. mon-
tana, Stokes).”—-A. B. J AcKson.

Ulmus glabra, Huds., var. major = Ulnaus hollandica, Sm.
Chalk soil, Happy Valley, Kimble, Bucks, July 1912.—F. L. Foorp-
Kevucey. ‘“Ulmus major, Smith.”—A. Henry. ‘These specimens

show well the suberosity of the lower branches, but this character is of
no value for distinguishing elms. This is no doubt the Ulmus major of
Smith and is now generally considered to be U. montana, Stokes x
glabra, Miller. Dr Moss regards it as U. hollandica, Miller. It is one
of our most distinct elms.” A. B. Jackson.

Ulmus glabra, Mill. Seedlings. Millwood, Dalton-in-Furness,
v.-c. 69, Sep. 30, 1912.—D. Lums. “ Probably correct.”—A. Henry.

Ulmus glabra, Miller. Type? [Ref. No. 15.] Oliver’s Farm,
Stanway, Essex N., July 12, 1912. I submitted several gatherings
of Ulmus to Dr E. G. Gilbert of Tunbridge Wells, and of this he says,
‘Perhaps the only pure glabra.’ These specimens agree exactly with
descriptions of the type, their smooth, shining leaves being specially
noticeable in nature.—G. C. Brown. ‘“Ulmus nitens, Moench (U.
glabra, Miller).,—A. Henry. “Best left under U. glabra, I think,
but leaves different in texture and form of toothing to the Stutton
plant, reported on elsewhere.” —A. B. Jackson.

Ulmus. [Ref. No 5224.] Castle Hedingham, Essex N., Oct. 1912.
A form, I suppose, of Miller’s U. glabra.—G. C. Druce. ‘“ Ulmus
mitens, Moench, forma.”—A. Henry. “The small-leaved Elm, JU.
sativa, Miller, I believe.” A. B. Jackson.

Ulmus ——'% [Ref. No. 5212.] Near Sawbridgeworth, Essex,
Oct. 1912.—-G. C. Druce. “This is a form of U. nitens, Moench
(U. glabra, Miller).”—A. Henry. ‘“ U. glabra, Miller, I believe.”—A.
B. JACKSON.

Ulmus glabra, Miller. [Ref. No. 14.] From a pendulous-branched
tree, Stutton, Suffolk E., v.-c. 25, July 11, 1912.—G. C. Brown.
“ Ulmus nitens, Moench (U. glabra, Miller).”—A. Henry. ‘ Typical
U. glabra, I should say. U. nitens, Moench, according to Dr C. E.
Moss.”—-A. B. Jackson.

Ulmus sativa, Mill. [Ref. No. 845.] West Barnes, Merton,
Surrey, Aug. 28, 1912. One tree of this, the small-leaved elm, in a

REPORT FoR 1912. 285

pasture, with several trees of U. glabra, Mill. (U. nitens, Moench).
The first tree of this species that I have met within Surrey. Detected
too late in the season to secure fruiting examples.—C. E. Brirron.
“This is a peculiar elm, possibly one of the numerous hybrids. It
resembles, in shape of leaves, Goodyer’s elm (the latter considered
to be U. minor, Miller, and which Dr. Moss calls U. sativa), but has
much more pubescent twigs, and differs in the axil tufts of the leaves,
&c. It may be possibly named U. minor, var.”—-A. Henry. “ Appar-
ently correct.”—A. B. Jackson. ‘I differ from Dr Moss in calling
this elm U. sativa, Mill.” —G. C. Druce.

Ulmus stricta, Lindley (Ulmus Wheatleyi, Hort.). [Ref. No. 4771.]
Near Thornborough, Bucks, July 1912.—G. C. Druce. “ Ulmus
mitens, Meench, var. Wheatley:. This is the Wheatley elm of nur-
series, very close to but distinct in habit and leaves from the true
Cornish elm (U. nitens, var. stricta). It is a pyramidal tree, very
regular in form. It is possibly, but not certainly, the same as Ulmus
sarniensis, Loddiges. It is occasionally called the Jersey or Guernsey
elm.”—A. Henry. “TI have a plant similar to this in my herbarium,
which Mr Augustine Henry calls a French form of U. nitens, Mcench
(U. glabra, Miller). It is apparently what is known as U. campestris
in France and elsewhere on the Continent, where our English elm is
unknown.”-—A. B. Jackson.

Ulmus sativa, Miller (=U. glabra, Miller, var. minor, Miller, of
A. Ley). [Ref. No. U 4.] A row of trees planted in Pencisely Road,
Llandaff, v.-c. 41, Aug. 22,1912. Ithink rightly named. A probably
native specimen was found high up in the hills of Glamorganshire.
(See Report 1911, p. 121.)—H. J. RippEtspetnt. “ Ulmus nitens,
Moench, var. stricta = U. stricta, Lindley. The Cornish elm, identical
with the wild tree in Cornwall.” —A. HEnry.

Ulmus vegeta, Ley, = U. glabra, Miller x montana, Stokes. Two
trees by roadside near Shepperton, Surrey, v.-c. 17, May 5, 1912.—A.
B. Jackson and J. Fraser. “ At first thought to be a form of the
Huntingdon elm and distributed under that name but I think only a
form of the Wych Elm.”—A. B. Jackson.

Urtica dioica, L., var. angustifolia, Ledeb. North Stoke, Oxon,
Sep. 1912. Growing with but keeping distinct from the type, than
which it was less ‘pungent’ as I gathered these without being stung.
—G. C. Druce.

Betula tomentosa, Reith. and Abel. Seedlings. Millwood, Dalton-
in Furness, v.-c. 69, Sep. 30, 1912. I am not sure about this deter-
mination.—D. Lumps. “ B. pubescens, Ehrh.”—E. 8. MarsHatt.

286 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

Salia purpurea x viminalis = rubra, Huds. Formby, 8. Lancs.,
v.-c. 59, June 29, 1912.—_-W. G. Travis. ‘The broad-leaved form of
S. purpurea x viminalis, which is rather nearer S. purpurea of the
two parents. Distinguished as S. rubra, var. Forbyana (Sm.).”—E. F.
LINTON.

Salix aurita, L. 2? and 4. Burleigh Meadows, Langley, near
Hitchin, 1911, 1912.—J. E. Lirrue. “ Yes.”-—-E 3S) Gieeeare
“ Right.”—E. F. Liyton.

Populus alba, li, 2. On right bank of the Hiz, in Beds, Cadwell
Bridge, near Ickleford, Herts ; March, May and June, 1912. A fine
old tree. Height, 78 feet, 6 inches. Girth at 4 feet from ground,
12 feet, 4 inches. Spread, 73 feet. Being old, the leaves are small,
with little trace of lobing. One of its suckers has grown into a small
tree 10 feet high, with more lobed leaves. We have eight other large
P. alba in the district, in Herts.—J. E. Lirryr. ‘“ Correct, I believe.
Mr Little notes that the tree from which these specimens was taken is
80 feet high, which is unusually large for P. alba, but I saw some fairly
good specimens at Hampstead last autumn.”—A. B. Jackson.

Populus canescens, Sm. x tremula, L. 2 (fide C. E. Moss). Grove
Road, Hitchin, Herts. March, April and June, 1912. Height,
40 feet (has lost its top). Girth at 4 feet from ground, 4 feet, 4 inches.
Spread, 33 feet. Stigmas pink, not so dark as P. tremula, and differing
in form.—J. E. Lirrie.

Populus tremula, L. g. Little Wymondley, near Hitchin, Herts,
Feb. 28 and Sep. 9, 1912.—J. E. Lirrne.

Populus tremula, L. 9. Lane between Grove Mill, Hitchin, and
Hyde Mill, Ickleford, Herts. Feb. 24 and June 30, 1912.—J. E.
Litre.

Populus nigra, L., var. betulifolia, 2 (fide C. E. Moss). Left bank
of stream, at lower end of Dalham Village, W. Suffolk, near a
P canescens, Sm. Height, about 100 feet. Spread, 40 feet. Lower
branches drooping below the horizontal. May 11 and Sept. 25, 1912.—
J. E. Lirrtz. ‘“ Yes; very good examples of the true Black Poplar.
The shoots are pubescent, which is a distinguishing character of the
variety betulifolia. It is the common form in this country. On
different trees, however, the pubescence varies very much in quantity.”
—A. B. JACKSON. |

Populus nigra, L., var. betulifolia. Cuxham, Oxford, June 1912.
Not quite typical, as they do not show in all cases the characteristic

REPORT FoR 1912. 287

thick pubescent twigs, but they have the correct shape of leaf, and
pubescence on leaf and petiole; teste A. Henry.—G. C. Druck.
“Specimen poor. Very near the last, and possibly of the same
origin. The Poplar known as P. nigra in the East of England seems
to be quite different from this, judging from specimens I have received
from there recently.”—_A. B. Jackson.

Populus deltoidea, Marsh., x nigra, L. Bank of the Hiz, above
Cadwell Bridge, Beds, near Ickleford, Herts, Mar. 30 and May 31,
1912. One of a series of about a dozen trees, all staminate, which
I have had under observation for two years, some pollarded, one
or two unmaimed. I believe them all to rank together. Many of
the leaves have no trace of glands at the base, but every here and
there one or two are found at or near the base of the lamina. Shoots
and buds are glabrous; petioles hairy; underside of the leaves
glabrous. Spring leaves are largely long-acuminate, with a cuneate
base, but the vigorous summer growth has an almost cordate base
and a triangular outline. For this particular tree I have not yet
procured the summer shoots.—J. E. Lirrte. “ Resembling very
much in texture and shape of leaf a ? tree at Bedford Park, specimens
from which I sent to the Club in 1911 under the name of P. nigra,
but which Dr Moss, when I showed him the tree last summer,
considered might possibly be P. deltoidea x P. migra, var. viridis.
See Report 1911, p. 126.”"—A. B. Jackson.

Iiparis Loeselii, Rich. Chippenham, Cambridgeshire. Coll., A.
Fryer; ex-herb. G. C. Druce.

Helleborine latifolia, Druce. Gatcombe Wood, Minchinhampton,
v.-c. 34, Aug. 14, 1912. Coll., E. M. Day. These are sent to illustrate
the difficulty of fitting our forms to the received descriptions. None
of these specimens have the orthodox ‘smooth bosses’ of the species,
though they vary greatly in depth of furrows and amount of roughness.
The plants are clearly 77. latifolia. Much scarcer with us in Gloucester-
shire is var. media, E. 8. Marshall, the bosses of which show no essential
difference from the type, nor do the flower bracts.—H. J. RippELSDELL.
“In H. latifolia the bosses are smooth. I believe this to be fine
H. atroviridis, W. R. Linton.”—E. 8. Marsnauyi. “The habit, shape
and texture of leaf, smaller flowers, etc., seem to point to var. media
rather than typical latifolia.”—-C. E. Satmon. ‘“ A mixed gathering.
Two samples were ZL. latifolia, All., one was probably /. atro-rubens,
Hoffm., and several were intermediates. The specimens were however
not well prepared for accurate determination.” —J. CRYER.

Narcissus sp. Field on slope near Llanedeyrn, v.-c. 41, April 15,
1912. Flowers all double, mostly greenish, sometimes very green, but

288 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

usually drying a rich yellow; degenerate. I suppose a form of double
Narcissus Pseudo-Narcissus, L. The same form occurred in a field
corner near Penard, Gower.—H. J. RippELsDELL. ‘‘ May be JW. odorus,
L., but I cannot find my Cornish examples, for comparison.”—E. S.
MarsHatu. “ Not odorus, L. Mr Riddelsdell’s suggestion is probably
correct.” —G. C. Druce.

Narcissus biflorus, Curt. Naturalised in a meadow at Brompton
Ralph, near Wivelscombe, Somerset, May 1912.—Coll. for F. L. Foorp-
KELCEY.

Leucojum aestivum, L. River Loddon, Twyford, Berks, May D,
1912.—A. WEBSTER.

Maianthemum bifolium, Schmidt. Hampstead, June 15,1912. A
single patch in a private wood, apparently native. It has been
known here for at least a century, and there are no records of its
introduction.—A. B. Jackson.

Allium Labingtonu, Borr. Newquay, W. Cornwall, v-c. 1,
July 21, 1912. Bulb somewhat irregularly shaped, with a groove
separating it more or less into two halves about two inches by one
and a half inches, white. One group of plants I have watched several
years flowered this year for the first time. I know of five stations in
my locality, all apparently quite native ones.—C. C. Vicurs.

Scilla hispanica, Mill. (campanulata, Ait.). [Ref. No. 3694. |
Naturalised on the border of a copse at Stoke St Mary, 8. Somerset,
v.-c. 5, May 1911 and 1912.—E. 8. MarsHatt.

Inlium pyrenaicum, Gouan. Hedge-banks in a lane at the foot of
Sheepwash Hill, near Molland, N. Devon, v.-c. 4, May 31, 1912. It
has considerably increased since Syme’s Hnglish Botany was published,
and now extends for about 200 yards. Mr James Britten and I
found another small colony almost at the top of the hill, quite three-
quarters of a mile away.—E. 8S. MarsHALL.

Inlium Martagon, L. In great abundance and luxuriance in a
wood at Kingston Bagpuze (See Flora of Berkshire, p. 497), July
1912.—G. C. Druce.

Juncus conglomeratus, L., var. lacus, Aschers. and Graebn.,
‘Syn. ii, 2, 445, 1904. [Ref. No. 4972.] Anglesey, July 1912.
Varying in its degrees of diffuseness ; simulating effwsws in its more
open panicles. The fruit and stem-striations are, however, typical
of conglomeratus, and I do not think these plants are hybrids by
buds.—G. C. DRuce.

REPORT FoR 1912. 289

Juncus articulatus, L. Waste ground, Askham, v.-c. 69, Auge 9)
1912. Is this gall-influence, viviparity, monstrosity, or what?—D.
Lums. “This is a frequent condition of the plant in wet places and
is, I believe, due to a gall which Prof. Trail tells me is Livia juncor-
um, an insect belonging to the Hemiptera Homoptera.”—G. C. Drucr.

Juncus bulbosus, L., var. Kochii, Druce. Woolmer Forest,
S. Hants, June 1912. This variety differs from the type not only
by its six stamens (a somewhat variable character), which is occasion-
ally found in J. bulbosus, but by its erect tufted habit. Dr Hugo
Gliick tells me he considers it to be a good variety, as cultivation
under changed conditions does not affect its distinguishing character.
—G. C. Drucz. “Mr Druce doubtless observed this when living as
to the characters.” A. BENNETT.

Juncus bulbosus, L., var. [Ref. No. 4943.] Near Omagh, Co.
Tyrone, July 1912.—G. C. Druce. “I should name this var.
uliginosus, Roth, species sub-supinus.”—A. BENNETT.

Juncus tenuis, Willdenow. Amongst a number of aliens sent me
by Mr G. A. Holt, of Sale, near Manchester, were three fine examples
of this species. It occurred on the banks of the Bridgewater Canal,
between Stretford and Sale, but on the Cheshire side of the boundary,
October 1912. Along with it was growing a congested variety,
18 inches in height. I have asked Mr Holt to procure additional
examples of the type, and of the variety, as members will be glad to
have this interesting species.—C. BaILry.

Juncus bufonius, L., forma altissima, mihi. [ Ref. No. 16.] Among
long grass by pond, Little Herkesley, Essex N., v.-c. 19, July 23, 1912.
This interesting form or state is much stouter and taller than any I
have ever seen. Hooker gives height, 1 to 8 inches. This varies from
9 to 19 inches (circa 30-50 cm.), average 14-15 inches, and I venture to
give it the name forma altossima, “ Differt a typo in culmis altioribus
(circa 30-50 cm.) ramis et ramusculis longioribus attenuatis.” Mr Druce
has seen this, and says, ‘I think only a drawn up condition, but if you
have a set for the Club there would be no reason why you should not
name it as you suggest..—G. C. Brown. ‘“‘ This seems to come between
the type and the var. foliosus, Buchenau =-/. foliosus, Desf., a plant
with stems 16 inches high and leaves 8 inches long, a native of Spain
and Sardinia.”—A. Bennett. ‘ Probably the var. giganteus, Aschers.
and Graebn. Stem erect, 3-5 dem., stouter and less smooth than type.”
—G. C. Druce. “J. bufonius, L., forma wmbrosa, ad var leucanthum.
A. and G. accedens ”—A. Tuettune. ‘TI have still taller examples
from near Blackpool, which I submitted to two well-known botanists.
Both thought them only ‘drawn’ examples.”—J. A. WHELDON.
“Type; altered by the conditions of growth.”—.E. 8S. MArsHALL.

290 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

Juncus ranarius, Nees. [Ref. No. 4919.] Teste Prof. Graebner.
See Report 1911, p. 35. Dr Graebner tells me that Buchenau became
convinced that it was a good species. In the sandy hollows on the
golf course, Pyrford, Surrey, July 1912.—Lady Davy and G. C. Druces.
‘‘Qpinions in this will differ; to me it is only a variety of bufonius.”—
A. BENNETT.

Luzula Forster, DC. Bank near Tidenham Railway Station,
v.-c. 34, May 6, 1911.—H. J. RippEuspeLtL. ‘“ Yes; but I call it
Juncoides.”-—G. C. Druce.

Sparganium neglectum, Beeby. [Ref. No 904.] Rescobie Loch,
v.-c. 90, N.C.R., Sept. 11, 1912.—R. and M. Corsrorpuins. _ “ Yes;
Dr Ostenfeld and I gathered it in this locality on the Brit. Ass.
Excursion last September. It is a new county record.”—G C. Drucs.
“Only one specimen sent.” —J. CRYER.

Scheuchzeria palustris, lL. On the Moor of Rannoch, associated
with Carex limosa, Drosera anglica, etc. From Mr Scarth’s locality,
where he discovered it in 1910. In some quantity over a limited area,
and fruiting freely. I collected this in somewhat trying climatic
conditions in August last, and with all care on account of its rarity ;
thus, with the exception of Sagina Boydiw, I have gathered all the
Scottish plants.—G. C. Drucr. “For the discovery of the plant in
Argyll, see Notes from the Royal Bot. Garden Hdinb., p. 57, t. 60,
Jan. 1912.”—A. BENNETT.

Potamogeton natans, L., forma. [Ref. No. 3006.] Between the
Middle and Lower Lakes, Killarney, Aug. 1911. This plant, which
appears always to be barren, was considered by the foreign botanists
on the International Phytogeographical Excursion to be a form of the
above species.—G. C. Drucr. ‘“ No form! simply the plant coming
on to maturity, and of which Fryer possessed a remarkable series.” —
A. Bennett. ‘“ Apparently a deep-water form, or state, of P. poly-
gonifolius.”—K. 8. MARSHALL. |

Potamogeton natans, L., forma. [Ref. No. 4799.] Great Bedwyn,
Wilts. The bright reddish coloured young barren form sent me, in
May 1912, by C. P. Hurst ; comm.—G. C Druce. ‘Simply an early
state of the species in the form that Syme named P. polygonifolius,
var linearis, from the Killarney Lakes, etc.”-A. Brennerr. ‘Is not
this P. polygonifoliust I cannot see the joint below the lamina,
characteristic of P. natans.”—E. 8S. MarsHa.t.

Potamogeton alpinus, Balb. Lunan Burn, near Loch Cluny, v.-c. 89,
Aug. 1911.—McT. Cowan, jun.—‘ Yes; an ordinary form of the
species.”-—A. BENNETT.

REPORT FOR 1912. 2

Potamogeton heterophyllus, Schreb. Loch Cluny, Perth, v.-c 89,
Aug. 1911.-—McT. Cowan, jun. ‘“Yes.”—A Bennerr. ‘“ Yes; the
P. gramineus, L., agg. forma longipedunculata, which I have gathered
there.” —G. C. Druck.

Potamogeton heterophyllus, Schreb. Lunan Burn, at Marlee Loch,
v.-c. 89, Aug. 1911. Mr Bennett says, ‘A dark form with much
enlarged peduncles. —McT. Cowan, jun. ‘ Yes.” —A. BENNETT.

Potamogeton heterophyllus x angustifolius, Bercht. and Presl.
Loch Rae, Perthshire, v.-c. 89, Aug. 1911.—McT. Cowan, jun.
“No; this is a form of heterophyllus not common in Europe, but
abounds in N. America, especially around the Great Lakes.”—
A. BENNETT.

Potamogeton obtusifolius, Mert. and Koch, b. fluvialis, Lange
and Mort. Loch Cluny, Perth, v.-c. 89, Aug. 1911.—McT. Cowan,
jun. ‘ Yes; the prevailing form in the Perthshire lochs. It is
probably the 6 elongata, Cham. and Schlecht (1827) and var. lacustris,
Fries Herb. Nor., 5, No. 81, but I have not seen specimens of these.” —
A. BENNETT.

Potamogeton pusillus, J, var. (!). Silverdale Moss, v.-c. 60,
June 1910. In abundance, but could not be found in seasons 1911,
1912, although carefully searched for.—J. Cryer. ‘This form is
tending to the var. tenwissimus, Mert. and Koch, but is not that
var. by the type specimens, though it comes near to it. It does
not exactly fit any of Fischer’s numerous forms, but seems to be
near his form b. tenwifolius, Fischer, in Ber. Bayr. Bot. Ges., xi. (1907),
115 ff.”.—A. BENNETT.

Potamogeton perfoliatus, L., var. Richardsonu, Journ. Bot. 1889,
p. 25, =var. lanceolatus, Robbins, in Gray’s Man. of N. United States,
1868. Mill-lade near Selkirk, alt. 350 feet, v..c. 79, Aug. 4, 1912;
teste A. Bennett.—I. M. Haywarp.

Potamogeton perfoliatus, y oblongifolius, Mert. and Koch. Mill-
lade, Selkirk, v.-c. 79, Aug. 6, 1912; teste A. Bennett. I found
this growing in great abundance under 5 to 6 feet of running
water.—I. M. Haywarb.

Potamogeton Sturrockii, Ar. Benn. Loch Cluny, Perth ; also from
Loch Marlee, v.-c. 89, Aug. 1911.—McT. Cowan, jun. “Yes; this
has been found rarely in America (Morong!), and in Sable Island,
Canada (Macorn!). The above is the third station for E, Perth.”—
A. BENNETT,

292 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

Potamogeton marinus, L. Rescobie Loch, Forfar, v.-c. 89, Aug.
1911._-McT. Cowan, jun. ‘Mr McTaggart Cowan here uses the
name marinus, L. There is no specimen of marinus (i.e. filiformis,
Nolte) in the Linnean Herbarium, the one so named being a
pectinatus, L., form. In another place I hope to show why we must
now use Linnaeus’ name, notwithstanding there being no specimen in
his herbarium.”—A. Brennetr. “ P. filiformis; which Mr Druce, like
Nyman, identifies with P. marinus, L.”—E. 8S. MarsHatt.

Potamogeton densus, L. Croxton-Keyrial, Leics., v.-c. 55, Aug. 22,
1912.—A. R. Horwoop. “Such specimens are not worth drying
unless as a new record to a county. It is one of the easiest to preserve
in the genus.” ——A. BENNETT.

Zostera marina, L. Sea sands at low tide near the Princess Pier,
Torquay, S. Devon, April 11 and 16, 1912.—C. WarrrFaty. “ As far
as leaf material goes, this appears to be var. stenophylla, Aschers. and
Graebn.”—--E. 8S. MARSHALL.

Scirpus caesprtosus, L., var. [Ref. No. 4779.] Rannoch Moor,
Perth, Aug. 1912.-—-G. C. Druce. “ A form with the slenderness of
var. nemorosus, Roth, but not that.”—A. Bennerr. ‘Is the var.
germanicus (Palla) Aschers. and Graebn. See Heport 1912, p. 180.”
—C. H. OstTENFELD.

Scirpus filiformis, Savi, var. monostachys, Syme. Abundant on
a damp sandy flat east side of Littlesea, Dorset, July 18, 1912.—
A. B. Jackson and C. B. Green. “This prostrate form of S. fili-
Jormis was found while searching for the rare S. nanus in its ‘locus
classicus.’”—A. B. JAcKson.

Scurpus maritimus, L., var. conglobatus, Gray. Sand dunes, near
Freshfield, South Lancs, v.-c. 59, Aug. 1912.—J. A. WHELpDon.
«= §. maritimus, L., var. tuberosus, Desf., sp. 1798; = S. maritimus,
L., var. compactus, Hoffm., sp. 1804; = S. maritimus, L., var. con-
globatus, Gray, sp. 1821.”—-A. Bennerr. “ Yes; the var. conglobatus,
S. F. Gray.”—G. C. Druce.

Rhyncospora fusca, R. and 8. Borth Bog, Cardigan, June 21,
1910.—L. Cummine. ‘ Recorded by the Rev. A. Ley in 1886 from
the Dyfi-Estuary marshes (Hecord Club Report 1887, 148.). The
opening of the estuary is only about three miles north of Borth, so
the localities are not far apart.” A. BENNETT.

Carex Pseudo-cyperus, L. Edge of White moor, near Ellesmere,
Salop, v.-c. 40, July 3; edge of Llyn Helig, Flint, v.-c. 51, July 13,
1912.—C. WATERFALL.

REPORT FOR 1912. 293

Carex acutiformis, Ehrh., var. spadicea, Roth., forma maxima,
Urban. Rawdon Wood, near Leeds, v.-c. 64. Many specimens ex-
ceeded five feet ; teste A. Bennett.—J. CryEr. “Carex acutiformis,
Ehrh., var. spadicea, Roth.”—L. Kuxentuan. “C. acutiformis, Ehrh.,
scarcely my idea of spadicea, Roth., which has a prolonged beak to
the glume as long as the utricle.’--G. C. Drucr. ‘TI can only see
C’. acutyformis, Ehrh., type in this; the glumes are not nearly long
or aristate enough for spadicea.”—E. S. MARSHALL.

Carex elata, All. Silverdale Moss, v.-c. 60, June 1912. Several
fine tufts.—J. Cryer. ‘‘ Yes; beautiful specimens.”—G. C. Drucs.

Carex gracilis, Curt. Marsh near Fairwater, v.-c. 41, May 25 and
June 3, 1912. The white leaf sheaths are very striking. The plant
grows mostly in large clumps at one end of an extensive marsh which
is rich in Carex forms.—H. J. RIpDELSDELL. ‘“ Yes; according to the
Flora a rare species in the county.”—-A. BEennerr. ‘“ Yes; a robust
form. Rouy uses the name C. acuta, Good., but it is later than
gracilis, Curtis.” —G. C. DRUCE.

Carex gracilis, Curt., var. tricostata (Fr.). Askham Bogs, near
- York, Aug. 21, 1912. I first noticed this in Aug. 24, 1905. It is
fairly plentiful in one corner of the bog. Teste A. Bennett and Rev.

E. 8S. Marshall.—J. Cryer. ‘Correct.”—L. KUKENTHAL.

Carex ? [Ref. No. 348.] Origin, Ormesby Common ; cult.,
Ledbury, v.-c. 27, July 27, 1912. This is the plant I have previously
distributed under the name of C. trinervis, Dégland. Mr Groves
intends to send a note respecting it to the Jowrnal of Botany, so I send
further specimens.—S. H. Bickuam. ‘Dried too early, but I suppose
is one of the C. trinervis forms by the stolons.”—-A. Bennerr. ‘“ ‘This
agrees with C’. trinervis in many respects. My example, however,
has but a single male spike, and the fruit is not in eight rows. These
characters are perhaps affected by cultivation. ‘The female spikes
show no male flowers as is said to be usual, but singularly enough the
solitary male spike terminates in a cluster of female flowers.”—J. A.
WHELDON. “ Pfarrer Kiikenthal thinks that it may belong to C.
tronervis. I collected it in Norfolk in 1911, but it seems to be scarcely
typical trinervis.”—-G. C. DRruce.

Carex vulpina, L., var. nemorosa, Lej. Ditch at edge of wood
between Tadlow and Wimpole, v.-c. 29, May 17, 1912. A hybrid form
in habit exactly like typical C. vulpina. There was no suggestion of
hybridity, C. remota, etc., not being noticed in the locality.—R. 8.
Apamson. ‘Mr Adamson is quite right in quoting this of Léjeune,
who so called it in his Revue de la Fl, en. d. Spa., 193, 1824,

294 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

Aschers. and Graebn. only quote it of Koch Syn., ed. 2, 866, 1844.”—
A. Bennett. “Yes; the var. nemorosa.”—G. C. Drucr.

Carex paradoxa x paniculata ( x C. solstitialis, Figert.). | Ref. No.
3764.| Swamp between Barton Mills and Teklingham, Suffolk W.,
v.-c. 25, June 4, 1912. I gathered this in company with Dr C. E. Moss
and Mr R. H. Adamson. As the two species grew together in good
quantity, we were led to make a special search for their hybrid, which
does not seem to have been previously detected in this country. I
believe the determination to be correct; it varied considerably, the
general habit being perhaps nearer to C’. paradoxa of the two, but
the characters seem fairly intermediate.—E. 8. MarsHauty. ‘It may
be, but looks very small for the paniculata part. If so itis C’. paradoxa
x paniculata, Haussk. Irmischia, 1881 = C. paniculata x paradoxa( x C.
solstitialis, Figert, in Deut. Bot. Mon., vii., 1889, p. 86).”—A.
Bennett. ‘“ Although the rhizome is wanting, Pfarrer Kikenthal
thinks it may be the hybrid suggested.” —G. C. Druce.

Carex arenaria, L., var. remota, Marss. Churchtown, South Lancs.,
July 1912. New to v.-c. 59.—J. A. WHELDoN.. “C. arenaria, var.
remota, recti.”——L. KukenTHAL. ‘“ Yes; but not extreme.”—G. C.
Druce. ‘Only two specimens sent.” —J. CRYER.

Carex divisa, Huds. By R. Colne, Wivenhoe, Essex N., v.-c. 19,
June 26, 1912.—G.-C. Brown. “ Yes.”—-A. Bennett. “ Yes7==
G. C. Drucker.

Panicum glabrum, Gaud. Sandy field, Compton, Surrey, Sept. 7,
1911.—C. E. Saumon.

Spartina Townsendi, H. and J. Groves. Mud flats, Hayling
Island, South Hants, v.-c. 11, Aug. 1912.—J. Comper. ‘“ Yes.”-—
E. HAcKEL.

Phalaris minor, Retz., var. [Ref. No. 30.] With type on waste
ground, Lerée, Guernsey, Aug. 13, 1912. Growing with the type.
A most distinct looking plant in growth, leaves, and_ spike.
P. canariensis grew close by, but I see nothing to suggest a hybrid.—
W.C. Barton. “ P. minor.”—H. HackE..

Phalaris minor, Retz., type and var. [Ref. No. 30 (a).] With
type on waste ground, Lerée, Guernsey, Aug. 13, 1912. Growing on
cultivated ground some 200 yards from No. 30. <A stouter plant, but
still quite distinct from Phalaris minor, type, among which it grew.—
W.C. Barton. ‘The type P. minor. Ref. 30 (a) is forma gracilis,
approaching P. gracilis, Parl.” —E. HackEt.

REPORT FOR 1912. 295

Phleum pratense, L., var. nodosum, L. Chalk pit, Whiteleaf, near
Risborough, Bucks, July 8, 1910.—F. L. Foorp-Ketcry. ‘“ Yes.”—
G. C. Druce. “ P. pratense, L., var. nodosum, Sm.”—E. Hacken.

Phleum pratense, L., var. stoloniferum, Bab. Donibristle, Fife,
v.-c. 89, July 21, 1912.—McT. Cowan, jun. “Yes; but it seems a
condition rather than a true variety.” —G. C. Drucr. “ P. pratense, L.,
var. stoloniferum, Neilrich.”—E. Hacks.

Agrostis verticillata, Vill. Roadsides and quarries, on diorites or
syenites, near Vale Castle, Guernsey, Aug. 14, 1912. This plant
seems to be confined in Guernsey strictly to the Guernsey ‘ granite’
(diorites or syenites), and appears only in the quarries or at the sides
of roads constructed of ‘granite’ or in ditches that drain such
roads.— W. C. Barron. ‘Yes; it is thoroughly established, if not
native, in Guernsey. See feport 1906, p. 199, and Journ. Bot. 1906,
p. 320.”—G. C. Druce.

Agrostis verticillata, Vill. St David’s, Fife, v.-c. 85, July 10,
1911.—McT. Cowan, jun. “No; Agrostis alba, L.”—J. CrymrR and
A. B. Jackson. “Is not this A. alba, L., var. coarctata, Hoffm. t”—
EK. 8. MarsHaunt. “No; this is A. alba, var. coarctata, Hackel, as
EK. Hackel agrees, but the var. coarctata, Hackel, is not the same
as coarctata, Hoffm.”—G. C. Druck.

Agrostis alba, L., var. major, Gaud. (?) Cornfield, Walton, S.
Lancs., v.-c. 59, July 1912.—J. A. WuHeEtpon. ‘“ Yes.” E. HAckKEL.

Agrostis canina, L., var. mutica, Doel. Auchmore, Killin, v.-e.
88, Sep. 13, 1911.—McT. Cowan, jun. ‘“ Yes.”—G. C. Druce and
E. Hacket.

Agrostis retrofacta, Willd. Sewage tip near Bradford, v.-c. 64,
July 7, 1908. This Australian grass appeared in considerable abun-
dance in the season of 1908. In 1909 there was a diminution in
quantity. It however has appeared each season since, including this
last. Named by Mr A. B. Jackson.—J. Cryer. “ Correct.”—E.
Hacket. ‘My specimen appears to be a form of Azra caryophyllea,
L., or a nearly allied species ; perhaps there has been an accidental
transfer of labels.” —E. 8. Marsuatu. ‘“ Mr Marshall’s specimen was
Agrostis retrofacta, Willd. There was no transfer of labels.”—J.
CRYER.

Calamagrostis epigeios, Roth, (?) var. densiflora, Ledeb., F7. Alt.
i, p. 87, 1829. I name this provisionally as above, as it agrees with a
plant so labelled in Kneucker’s Gramineae Hasiccatae, xvii. Lieferung,

296 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

1905. The spikes are denser than in other specimens of C’. epigeios
which I possess, but they were apparently gathered before flowering. —
A.B. Jackson. ‘This comes indeed very near that variety.”—-E.
HACKEL.

Aira caryophyllea, L. [Ref. No. 4930.] A small pretty form
growing with Hypochaerts glabra at Frilford, July 1912.—G. C.
DRUCE.

Dactylis glomerata, L., var. b. congesta, Gren. and Godr. Lan-
cresse Common, Guernsey, Aug. 8, 1912.--W. C. Barton. ‘“ Yes;
the older name is abbreviata, Bernh.”—G. C. Drucr. “Just like the
plant so called, from-the Great Orme’s Head. A recent visit has con-
firmed my belief that this is nothing but a starved state.” —KE. 8.
MarsHALL. “ D. glomerata, var. abbreviata, Drejer.”—E. HAcKEL.

Poa Charan, Vill. Millwood, Dalton, v.-c. 69, July 15, 1912.
This grass is well established here. I can’t make even a plausible guess
at the mode of introduction. The narrow-leaved parts distributed are
from plants in deep shade. or three seasons these plants have pro-
duced no flowering culms, while those on what might be called the
‘edge of shade’ have flowered luxuriantly. The plants maintain the
deep glossy ivy-green colour, which is very difterent from that of any
other grass known to us, all the winter. The asperities causing the
roughness seem to point upwards on the actual culm and downwards
on the sheaths. I hope some member, whose opinion is a weighty one,
will agree with me and put on record that ‘glabrous’ is a misleading
description of the veins on these lower pales.—D. Lump. ‘‘ Yes ; and
corroborated by Prof. Lindman and E. Hackel. It is a new county
record. I have deleted the term glabrous from my Pocket Book ; the
veins are often, but not as these specimens show, entirely glabrous.” —

G. C. Druce.

Poa palustris, L., var. effusa, Achers. and Graebn. [Ref. No. 349. |
Old clay-pits, the Rhydd, near Upton-on-Severn, Worcester. Coll.,
R. F. Towndrow, July 10, 1912. The specimens sent last year were
too far advanced ; I send a set gathered earlier.—S. H. BickHam.

Poa pratensis, L., var. subcoerulea (Sm.). Sand-pit, St Martha’s Hill,
Guildford, Surrey, v.-c. 17, June 1912.—J. Comper. ‘ Yes.”—G. C.
Druce and E. Hacket.

Poa nemoralis, L. Damp wall in deep shade, Millwood, Dalton,
v.-c. 69, Sept. 11, 1912. Is this type?—D. Lums. “ Var. coarctata,
Gaud., or between that and the type. Collected too late in the
year.” —H, S, MarsHatu, “ Var, subuniflora, Reichb.”—H, HackEL,

REPORT FoR 1912. 297

Poa nemoralis, var. Wood on Cooper’s Hill, v.-c. 33, July 1, 1912.
A highly glaucous form, growing with other forms of the species ;
spikes and spikelets small.—H.J. RippEtspEeti. ‘Only weak, shade-
grown type.’— HE. S. Marswarty. “Var. subuniflora, Reichb.”—
EK. HaAckKeE..

Poa compressa, L. Askham Ironworks, v.-c. 69, July 9, 1912.
Is this type? This grass grows so isolated here that I am constrained
to think that it is an introduction direct from the Continent.—
D. Lums.—‘“ Yes.”—G. C. Drucr and E. Hacket.

Glyceria declinata, Bréb. Marshy ground in old quarry, near
Little Crosby, 8. Lanes., v.-c. 59, July 12, 1912. New to v.-c. 59.—
J. A. WHELDON. ‘“Correct.”—E. 8S. MarsHauy. “G. plicata, Fries,
var. triticea, Lange, forma mznor.”—E. HAcKEL.

Glyceria procumbens, Dum. Waste ground, Langenhoe Marshes,
Essex N., v.-c. 19, May 30, 1912.—G. C. Brown. “ Yes ; the combina-
tion G. rupestris is invalid. There is no evidence to show that the
publication of Withering’s Poa rupestris was prior to Poa procumbens,
Curtis, which Dr Jackson agrees with me was published in 1795, one
year before Withering’s Arrangement appeared.”---G. C. Druce.
“Yes ; the Schlerochloa procumbens, Beauv.” —E. HAcKEt.

Festuca elatior, L., var. pseudo-loliacea, Hackel. [Ref. No. 118.]
Esk above Musselburgh, v.-c. 83, June 12, 1911.—McT. Cowan, jun.
“ F’, elatior, L., sub-species pratensis genuina, ad var. pseudo-loliaceum,
Hack. vergens (but this has only one spikelet on each node of the
rachis).”—E. HackEt.

Festuca ——% Fringe of salt marsh, Aberlady, v.-c. 82, June 3,
1911. Skirting the salt marsh there is a belt of this grass some yards
wide and forming in some cases an almost pure association.—McT.
Cowan, jun. “/. rubra, L., var. genwina, Gaud.”—-E. HAckEt.

Festuca ——‘? [Ref. No. 108.] Shore meadow, Aberlady, v.-c. 82,
Aug. 23, 1911. Spikelets hairy, but not, I think, F. rubra, var.
barbata, Hackel.—McT. Cowan, jun. “fF. rubra, L., var. vulgaris,
sub-var. barbata, partim. Some peduncles have glabrous spikelets.” —
EK. Hacks.

Festuca rubra, L., var. [Ref. No. 103.] Caenlochan Glen,
Forfar, v.-c. 90, July 23, 1910. Ref. Nos. 102 and 103, both from
2,500 feet. In this place there were three distinct forms growing side
by side, one with spikelets almost glabrous, one with spikelets with
long hairs, and one with very long awns. These are two of them.

298 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

Also Festuca ——% Near Dalmeny, v.-c. 84, June 6, 1911. —
McT. Cowan, jun. “F. rubra, L., var. genuina, Gaud.”— E.
HACKEL.

Festuca rubra, L., var. barbata, Hack. Freshfield, S. Lanes.,
v.-c., 59, June 29, 1912.—W. G. Travis. ‘“ Yes; Hackel published
it as a sub-var. which I think is synonymous with the var. pubescens,
Gren. and Godr.”—-G. C. Drucre. “ Yes.”—E. HackeEt.

Festuca rubra, L., var. arenaria, Fr. Sandy shore, St Osyth,
Essex N., v. c. 19, June 13, 1912.—G. C. Brown. | “#. rubra, i,
var. vulgaris, Gaud., sub var. grandiflora, Hack.”—E. Hacks.

Festuca rubra, L., var. durvuscula, Syme. [Ref. No. 116.]
Duddingston, v.-c. 83, June 2, 1911.—McT. Cowan, jun. “ F. rubra,
type.” —G. C. Drucr. “ Var. fallax, Hackel (Ff. fallax, Thuill.). My
plant is very weak, and probably shade grown.”—E. 8S. MarsHatt.
“ F. rubra, L., var. vulgaris, Gaud.”—K. Hacker.

Bromus tectorum, L. Waste ground, Wakefield, v.-c. 63, July
1912. Growing with Hypecoum pendulum, lL. Abundant this year.—
J. Cryer. ‘“ Yes.”—G. C. Druce and E. Hacket.

Bromus unioloides, H. B. K. Sewage tip, Bingley, v.-c. 64,
Sept. 4, 1912. In abundance. J. Cryer. ‘“ Yes.” —G. C. Druce
and EK. Hacket.

Bromus secalinus, L. Banks of Esk, Musselburgh, v.-c. 83,
June 6, 1911. Outer palea much less obtuse than usual.—McT.
Cowan, jun. ‘“ B. commutatus, Schrad.”—E. Hackk&t.

Bromus racemosus, L., forma. Banks of River Esk, near Inveresk,
v.-c. 83, June 6, 1911. A form approaching £B. commutatus.—
McT. Cowan, jun. “ B. hordeaceus, var. leptostachys, Beck.”—
EK. Hackett.

Bromus hordeaceus, L., var. [Ref. No. 4885.] Crowell, Oxford,
May 1912. Near the Jleptostachys, Persoon.—G. C. Drucr. “3B.
hordeaceus, L., var. leptostachys, Beck.” —E. Hack.

Bromus hordeaceus, \., var. Banks of Esk, Musselburgh, June
1911.—McT. Cowan, jun. “Bromus hordeaceus, L., var. leptostachys,
Beck.”—E. HaAcKEL.

Bromus hordeaceus, L., var. microstachys, Duval-Jouve. [Ref. No.
4798.| Near Louth, Lincoln N., May 1912.—G. C. Drucre. “ Var.
leptostachys, Beck., forma microstachys.”—E, Hackkt.

REPORT FoR 1912. 299

Bromus hordeaceus, L., var. glabratus, Doell. [Ref. No. 4790.]
Woodstock, Oxon, May 1912.—G. C. Dructr.

Bromus hordeaceus, L., var. d. nanus, Weig. Exposed coast,
Lancresse Common, Guernsey, Aug. 14, 1912.—-W. C. Barron.
“Merely a starved state of the glabrous plant, var. /eptostachys =
glabratus.”—E. 8. MarsHaun. “Bb. hordeaceus, L., var. leptostachys,
Beck., forma nana. (The var. nana of Weigel has hirsute spikelets. )”
—-E. HackEt.

Lolium temulentum, L. Amongst oats, Askham, v.-c. 69, Aug. 2,
1912. Mr Hodgson, in his Plora of Gameenand has a very interesting
paragraph concerning the association of Loliwm temulentum and
Raphanus satiwus. It seems very strange that after forty-two years,
and in practically the same corner of the country, the same unusual
plants should be growing together. The Aaphanus was the lilac-
coloured form ; most of that growing in the adjoining gardens was
nearly, if ee quite, white. “Among the same oats were growing
Hordeum hexastichum, H. distichum, H. jubatum, Secale eerie.
Triticum vulgare, var. barbatum, T. vulgare (with densely hairy
spikelets), Loluwm arvense, one plant of Polypogon monspeliensis,
Avena fatua, and A. sterilis.—D. Lump. ‘“ Yes.” —G. C. Druce and
E. Hacker. “ Yes ; var. macrochaeton, A. Br.”—J. A. WHELDON.

Lolium temulentum, L., var. arvense, With. Growing with the
type among oats, etc. Askham, v.-c. 69, Aug. 2, 1912.—D.
Lump. ‘TI suppose so, although with rather more numerous flowers
in the spikelets, and sterile basal shoots. It is in good fruit, or these
latter might suggest intercrossing.”-—J. A. WHeELpoN. *‘‘ Yes; but
Withering described ‘it as a species.”—G. C. Druce. “Correct.” —
EK. HackEL.

Lolium multiflorum, Lam. Waste ground, Askham, v.-c. 69, Oct. 1,
1912. Is this type? The young leaves, for some time after emerging
from the sheaths, seem to be convolute, one edge being free. talicwm
is frequently so too.—D. Lump. “ Rooting at nodes and looks as
though perennial. Is it not a state of L. ctalicum, although so untypical
looking ?”—J. A. WHELDON. “Correct.” —E. HAcKEL.

Agropyron ——(t). [Ref. No. 126.] Inveresk, July 8, 1911.—
McT. Cowan, jun. ‘A. pungens, R. and 8.”—E. Hacket.

Agropyron pungens, R. and 8., var. aristatum, Hack. In great
abundance at the mouth of the small river Kerr, Carnforth, v.-c. 60,
Aug. 1912. Named by Mr A. B. Jackson.—J. Cryer. “ = A. pun-
gens, Reichb.” —E. HackEt.

300 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

Agropyron junceum x repens. Burton Bradstock, v.-c. 9, July 18,
1912. Scarce. —H. J. RippELSDELL. “ Yes; Z'riticwm laxum, Fr.”—
EK. S. Marsmatt. “Yes; under my x A. Hackelwi, but super-
junceum.”—G. C. Druce. “ Yes.”—-K. HackeEt.

Agropyron (?) [Ref. No. 124.] Inverkeithing, Fife, v.-c. 85,
July 4, 1911. Rachis covered with a thick pubescence. Is this the
var. lasiorachis, Hackel? I do not know it.—McT. Cowan, jun.
“ Forma trichorachis, Rohlena in Bolun Gres. Wiss. 1899, xxiv., 5, 8.” —
HK. Hacker. “ Practically identical with A. repens, var. lasiorachis,
Hackel.”—G. C. Druce.

Agropyron repens, Beauv. [Ref. No. 122.) Turnhouse, v.-c. 83,
June 29, 1911.—McT. Cowan, jun. “ Var. Leersianum, Gray =bar-
batum, Duval-Jouve.”—E. 8S. MarsHauu. ‘A. repens, Beauv., var.
Vaillantianum, Reichb.”—E. HackeE .

Agropyron repens, Beauv., var. [Ref. No. 123.] Near Blackford
Hill, v.-c. 83, July 1i, 1911.—McT. Cowan, jun. ‘A. repens, Beauv.,
var. arvense, Reichb.”—E. HAcKEL.

Agropyron repens, Beauv., var. [Ref. No. 138.] Turnhouse,
v.-c. 83, Sept. 29, 1911.—McT. Cowan, jun. ‘“ A. repens, var. dume-
torum, Reichb.” —E. HAcKEL.

Agropyron repens, L., var. Leerstanum, S. F. Gray. Shore of
R. Mersey, Hale, 8. Lanes, v.-c. 59, Aug. 1912.—W. G. Travis.

Agropyron pungens, R. and 8. [Ref. No. 127.] St David’s, Fife,
v.-c. 85, Aug. 10, 1911.—McT. Cowan, jun. ‘A. repens, var. dume-
torum, Reichb.”—E. HackEL..

Elymus arenarius, L. Sea coast, Mostyn, Flint, v.-c. 51, July 13,
1912.—C. WATERFALL.

Equisetum palustre, L., forma (or hybrid?) Sandy ground near
Altcar, 8S. Lanes., v.-c. 59, July 1912. Procumbent, or main stem
erect with procumbent long lower branches. All the branches are
deflexed, then ascending. Both £. palustre and H. arvense are abun-
dant in the vicinity. I have observed it for two years without seeing
any signs of fructification—J. A. WHELDON.

Near Southport Dr Graebner pointed out to me in 1911, what
he considered to be Z. litorale, but although I have specimens I have
not had time to make the requisite sections. Both the assumed
parents were in the vicinity.—G. C. Druce.

REPORT FoR 1912. 301

Equisetum varregatum, Schleich. Pools on sand hills, Ainsdale, 8.
Mames., v.-c. 09, April 27, 1912:—C. Warerratn. “No; this is Z.
palustre, L., var. nudwm, Newman, or very near it.” —E. S. MarsHALu.
“One stem of #. varregatum and several of H. palustre, on my sheet.
The latter is in a simple, slightly branched or entirely unbranched
form.”—J. A. WuHetpon. “My specimens were mixed.”—G. C.
DRUCE.

Pteridium aquilinum, L., var. lanuginosum (Bory), vel Pteris aquil-
wma, lL, var. lanuginosa, Bory. Stow Wood, Oxon, with Dr Stapf and
Dr Domin, Oct. 1912. This form characterised by the hairs on the
under surface of the pinnae. Dr Domin pointed it out to me. See
Report 1912, p. 185.—G. C. Druce.

Asplenium marinum, L. Carboniferous limestone rocks, facing
sea, Puffin Island, Anglesea, v.-c. 52, May 18, 1912.—C. Waremr-
FALL.

Lastrea alpina, Wollaston. Origin, rock clefts on Braeriach at
2800 feet, Easterness, July 1909. Cult., Walton, 1912. This remains
constant in cultivation. Its habit is strikingly different from that of
L. aristata, the lowest pair of pinnae being placed at a different angle
from the other, giving the frond a shuttlecock-like appearance. This
is not evident in dried specimens. See Report 1911, p. 145.—J. A.
WHELDON.

Isoetes hystrix, Durieu. Damp ground, near Fort le Marchant,

Guernsey, Aug. 8, 1912.—W. C. Barron.

Azolla filiculoides, Lam. Woodbastwick, Norfolk. I noticed this
last year, but did not collect it, and too rashly assumed it was 4.
caroliniana, Willd. Dr Ostenfeld, who took some, names it as above
(see Report 1912, p. 186). I owe these specimens to the kindness of
the owner of Woodbastwick, J. Cator, Esq., M.P., who sent me them
in late August when the plant was fruiting freely. When in fruit
the glochidia which are without septa offer a definite means of
identification. In caroliniana (teste N. E. Brown) the glochidia
are septate.—G. C. DRUCE.

Azolla filiculoides, Lam. In brackish water near Queenstown
Junction, Co. Cork. Noticed but not collected by me on the Internat.
Phyt.-Geog. Excurs. and assumed to be A. caroliniensis, but those
specimens kindly supplied by R. H. Beamish, Esq., Oct. 1912, prove
it (teste N. E. Brown) to be the above species.—G. C. Druck.

Nitella gracilis, Agardh. Perranzabuloe, West Cornwall, v.-c. 1,
Oct. 19, 1912. Coll., F. Rinsrone and C. C. Vieurs. “Mr Rilstone’s

302 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES.

discovery of this very rare species in Cornwall represents a notable
extension of its known distribution.” —J. GrRovss.

Nitella ——-.? Sparingly in Amberley Wild Brooks, Sussex,
July 18, 1912. WV. prolifera is given for this locality on Mr T. Hilton’s
authority in 1900 in Arnold’s Sussea Flora.—A. WeBstER. “ Toly-
pella prolifera, Leonh.” - J. GROVES.

Chara Braunu, Gmel. Canal near Reddish, 8. Lanes., v.-c. 59,
Aug. 10, 1891.—J. A. WHELDON. ‘Small to the fruit gatherings.”—
A. BENNETT.

Chara longribracteata, Kitz. Ditch near the shore, Churchtown,
S. Lancs, v.-c. 59, July 1912.—J. A. WHELpoN. “ = C. vulgaris, L.,
var. longibracteata, Kiitz., Sp. Alg., 1849.” A. BENNETT. .

Chara baltica, Bruzel (fide H. and J. Groves). Bay of Voy, Loch
of Stenness, Sandwick, Mainland, Orkney, Aug. 20, 1912. Native.
Plant slightly feetid.— H. H. Jonnsron.

Chara aspera, Willd. Pools near the shore, Leasowe, Cheshire,
v.-c. 58, Aug. 1903.—J. A. WuHELDoN. “Not given for county in
Flora of Cheshire, 1899, but C. hispida is for same locality. The
authority not conclusive.”—-A. BENNETT. ‘“‘ Yes.” —J. GROVES.

Chara fragilis, Desv., var. delicatula, Braun (fide H. and J.
Groves). Stony bed at bottom of running water in a burn 250 feet
above sea level. Burn of Selta, Stromness, Mainland, Orkney, Aug. 23,
1912. Plant slightly foetid.—H. H. Jounsron.

Mr S. H. Bickuam kindly sent a series of packets of seeds for
distribution :—Jsatis tinctoria, Hypericum undulatum, Bupleurum
falcatum, Sonchus palustris, and Stachys germanica ; and Mr D. Lume
an interesting series of dwarf plants growing on slag at Askham, on
the Duddon estuary. But the exigencies of space forbid details.
Mr C. E. Satmon suggests the Sagina procumbens is S. apetala, the
Arenaria serpyllifolia is A. leptoclados, the Centawrvum umbellatum
is C. litorale, and the Matricaria imodora, var. maritima is the
var. salina.

Mr Hunnysun’s present address is Camperdown, Alpine Road,
Ventnor, Isle of Wight.

as
SOME ey,
Nad) .

pag ea oe ee Ne

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION LIBRARIES

|
| ]
i \ | |

3 9088 01702 8697