48 The Irish Naturalist. April, 1924. 



them to Mr. Pugsley. He confirms the identification of the H. pellucidum 

 from the Dick's Hole colony, and pronounces the later find H. serraiifrons 

 'Almq. var. grandidens Dahlst. The H. pellucidum here appear to be 

 restricted to an area of less than 100 square yards, and the first found 

 colony of H. serratifrons is of approximately equal size, but several smaller 

 outlying groups of plants of the latter species have since been noted 

 near to the larger colony first discovered. 



Nevin H. Foster. 

 Hillsborough, Co, Down 



Erica stricta. 



In the Journal of Botany, 1872, p. 25, there is the following note about 

 Erica stricta in Ireland, which on account of the recent discovery of this 

 plant at Downhill, Co, Derry, and at Sallagh Braes, above Larne, Co: 

 Antrim, may be of interest to Irish botanists. It was probably unknown 

 to Dr. Praeger when he recorded the fi.nd (see I.A^., March, 1923). The 

 note is from Mr, Britten's pen and runs as follows : — 



" Erica stricta, Andr., in Ireland. — The distribution of 

 this species, as given in De Cand. Prod. vii. 666, is ' in montibus 

 Corsica?, Sardinise, et Hispaniae australis (Boiss. !), etiam in Hibernia 

 horeali (Lloyd in Herb. Hooker !).' This notice seems to have escaped 

 the attention of Irish botanists, and is not taker up in any book upon 

 British botany. It seems therefore worth drawing attention to 

 although some error has doubtless occurred. I have seen the spec- 

 men in the Kew Herbarium, and there is no doubt about its identity 

 with Erica stricta. It is labelled in Sir W. J. Hooker's hand, ' North 

 of Ireland ! Dr. Llo^^d, 1834.' — James Britten." 



Erica stricta is placed among the excluded plants in Stewart and 

 Corry's " Flora of the North-East of Ireland " as an erroneous record 

 with a reference to the above note, and appears in the New Supplement 

 as " Erica stricta Andr. error," The fact, however, that the plant has 

 been found recently in the counties of Antrim and Derry is, I think, fair 

 presumptive evidence tliat Dr. Lloyd's specimen was collected in the 

 " North of Ireland." It may even have been gathered at one or other of 

 the localities mentioned in Dr. Praeger's note. 



'ft^ 



National Museum M. C. Knowles. 



