i88 ANNALS OF SCOTTISH NATURAL HISTORY 



oigoclados, Muell. and Lefv. (as a variety). R. Neivbouldii, 

 Bab., is also reduced to a var. under R. oigoclados, and is 

 recorded for one Scottish county (Fife, with Kinross) besides 

 six English, and County Dublin. 



R. Koehleri) W. and N., var. cgregius, Bab., and var. 

 ScJilickumi, Bab. The comments on these two varieties are 

 foggy in the extreme. R. egrcgius, Focke, and R. Schlicknuii, 

 Wirtg., belong to the Egregii. They are, in the Supplement, 

 reduced to vars. of R. KocJderi ! but as neither of them is 

 yet known for Britain, it is needless to waste further words 

 on their treatment there. 



R. Koclileri, W. and N., var. pallidus, Bab. This is now 

 recognised as a distinct variety, and is not a shade-grown 

 state of the type. R. cavatifolius, P. J. Mueller, which was 

 reduced to a variety of R. Koehlcri by Professor Babington, 

 is now reinstated as a species, and placed among the 

 Radulcc. 



R. melanodermis , Focke. This marked species, discovered 

 in Dorset by the Rev. W. M. Rogers, was identified by Professor 

 Babington with R. melanoxylon, Muell. and Wirtg. (" Journ. 

 Bot," 1887, p. 21). Mr. N. E. Brown rightly rejects this 

 identification, but quotes as a description of R. melanodermis 

 that given by Professor Babington, which is apparently a 

 description of R. melanoxylon ! The Derbyshire plant 

 referred to is of course quite different from R. melanodermis^ 

 and has since been identified (by the Rev. W. H. Purchas) 

 as a setose form of R. calvatus, Blox. 



R. fnsco-atcr, W. and N. ? As a matter of fact, we had 

 no claim to this species as British when the Supplement 

 was published. It has since been found in Surrey and 

 Derbyshire, and named by Dr. Focke. 



R. Briggsii, Blox. This and R. Bagnalli, Blox., were 

 placed by the Rev. W. M. Rogers as separable varieties under 

 R. oigoclados, Muell. and Lefv., in 1893, but withdrawn 

 altogether a year later as being probably extinct, each of 

 them in its one county, and appearing to be " only anomalous 

 forms." The reference to a Norfolk plant of mine (as 

 " cmersistylus " = Briggsii] is an error. 



