saxifraga cyespitosa as a scottish species 175 



96. Easterness. 



" Mountain north of Loch Laggan," Dr. F. B. White, 

 in litt. 



"Glen Spean, August 1886, with Scottish Alpine Bot. 

 Club," A. H. Evans, sp. 



The name of the mountain was withheld, but it varies 

 from 3422 ft. to 3437 ft. This exactly matches Dr. Barry's 

 specimens. 



97. Westerness. 



In Mr. Borrer's herbarium at Kew are specimens gathered 

 by Joseph Wood " among the rocks near the summit of 

 Ben Nevis." These Dr. B. Syme considered to be the true 

 plant. I have not seen them. 



I have a specimen named " S. caespitosa, Z., alt. 3500 ft., 

 Ben Lawers, Perthshire, Aug. 1892, A. B. Hall." I cannot 

 so regard it, but it may be the subsp. grcenlandica. 



With reference to the Carnarvon specimens, I possess 

 two gathered by Dr. Roberts of Bangor (evidently very old, 

 as the ink is much faded), given me by Mr. Griffiths of 

 Bangor. They are localised from " nr. Twll-du'," no date. 



According to the " Biog. Index of Brit, and Irish 

 Botanists" (1893), p. 143, this Dr. Roberts died before 1828. 

 They do resemble the Ben Lawers example, and may so 

 belong, but are not the same as Dr. Barry's specimens. 



Then with regard to Irish specimens so named from the 

 coast of Donegal (Crosfield, leg.), by Mr. N. E. Brown w^ith 

 a ! appended, Mr. Baker wrote on these, " Crosfield's Saxi- 

 frage is exactly affinis of Don and Mackay." 



Mr. Brown adds, " certainly not." 



Here again I say not the true arctic ccEspitosa^ nor like it. 



Thus there seem to be certainly two counties (Banff 

 and Inverness) in which the true plant has occurred. 



With regard to its first record, Mr. Clarke's, " Smith, 

 Fl. Brit. ii. 455, 1800," refers only to the Welsh specimens. 

 Smith also in his " Eng. Fl." ii. (1828), 274, has only Welsh 

 and Irish plants ; and expresses the opinion that Hooker 

 (" Fl. Scot." I 821) has confounded many things under that 

 name. Hooker ("Brit. Fl." 1830, 196) has a long note on 

 Smith's remarks, but no Scotch locality. But in his third ed. 



