Davies. — Galiiun eredum and G. Mollugo 171 N.E. Ireland. 263 



The foregoing, with the exception of a few added words, 

 relative mainly to the Irish distribution of G. eredum, was 

 written for the January number of the Irish Naturalist. Mr. 

 Nathaniel Colgan, M.R.I. A., whose critical knowledge of Irish 

 plants renders his judgment of the highest value, saw the 

 MS., and without giving a positive opinion was inclined to 

 question the correctness of the views expressed. The general 

 description in my notes was thought by him to indicate a 

 plant, which corresponded to one growing in his lawn at 

 Rathmines, and found also in the garden of the late Mr. More ; 

 both known to have been introduced with grass-seed, and 

 named as G. Mollugo var. i7isubricum, Gaudin. Mr. Colgan 

 has since favoured me with specimens of the Dublin plant, 

 which differs from that at Glenmore in that it is much more 

 robust, the branches more numerous and more spreading, the 

 inflorescence more profuse, and the leaves relatively broader 

 and slightly obovate ; and differing as it does from G. Mollugo 

 growing in hedges, the question arises, under which species, 

 should it be placed ? That it should occur in situations such as 

 mentioned above, is, nevertheless, a deviation from what seems 

 to be the general rule. The determination of our northern 

 plant, however, was not based upon a consideration of habitat, 

 nor was it intended to use that as an argument to fortify a 

 position as to which there might have been some lingering 

 doubt. Still, such considerations have their value, and in 

 this instance they led to the re-examination of supposed 

 G. Mollugo growing in open grassy places. Mr. Stewart, after 

 reading over Mr. Colgan's observations, wrote to me : " I have 

 again gone over the specimens with the help of Mr. Foggitt's 

 well-selected and beautifully prepared examples of G. eredimi. 

 I still hold to the correctness of the name, but a few months 

 will settle the question effectually." 



Galium insubricum. Gaud., seems to me a somewhat shadowy 

 creation. In Nyman's Conspectus (1854), it is not even 

 mentioned, and Sir J. D. Hooker in Student* s Flora (1884), 

 cites the name as a synonym of G. Mollugo. Is there room 

 for a distinct variety between that species and G. ered7C7?i ? 

 Mr. Stewart thinks not. In this connection it is to be noted 

 that Hooker places the latter in the rank of a sub-species ; 



A4 



