272 THE JOURNAL OP BOTANY 



among the leaders in British hotany — the Eevs. E. F. Linton, 



E. S. Marshall, W. Moyle Rogers, and Mr. C. E. Salmon ; and it 

 is satisfactory to note that the Report is confined to matters 

 which definitely come within its scope, with a commendable 

 absence, save in one or two cases, of " casuals." 



Intended, as it is, primarily for members of the Club, and 

 confined to notes upon specimens sent by or to them, the Report 

 does not lend itself largely to citation, and it seems to us that its 

 domestic character is more marked than it has been in other 

 years. We cannot but feel, also, that in some cases the conflict- 

 ing opinions of recognized authorities are calculated to puzzle 

 rather than to help the worker. Take for example the plant 

 named by the collector Glyceria distans Wahl. var. 'pidvinata 

 Fries. Mr. Bennett accepts this identification ; Mr. Marshall 

 says it " cannot be this variety " ; Prof. Hackel agrees, and 

 suggests Atropis convoluia, but " hesitates to give a definite 

 opinion"; Dr. Stapf "has no doubt it is Atropis viaritima " ; 

 Dr. Rendle has examined it and " would suggest that it is neither 

 convoluta nor maritima," and adds that " Dr. Lang should send 

 more satisfactory specimens." In this case there is no question 

 of a mixture of specimens, as the editor, Mr. Goode, tells us that 

 the notes, with the exception of Mr. Marshall's, " have been sent 

 after an examination of the same specimens." Again, of a plant 

 entered under Spergularia salina var. neglecta, it is suggested 

 that " the gathering was a mixed one," would it not then have 

 been better to suppress the contradictory notes ? Here is another 

 example of the same kind : 



" Hieracmm macnlatiim Sm. Lindfield, E. Sussex, May 29, 

 1912. — R. S. Standen. I have not seen Smith's type of H. 

 maculatum ; but my collection contains at least two plants under 

 that name which can hardly be conspecific. The Rev. Augustin 

 Ley was surely right in referring this Lindfield hawkweed to 

 H. Sommerfeltii Lindeb. var. splendens F. J. Hanb. [H. Griffithii 



F. J. Hanb. prius) ; I have again carefully compared them, and 

 find the resemblance, especially to cultivated var. splendens, 

 exceedingly close. The only H. ' maculaUim ' of mine which 

 Mr. Standen's plant approaches is that from old walls at 

 Chichester, which is more pilose-headed than the rest, but far 

 less shaggy-headed than these and other specimens from Lind- 

 field. The occurrence of any Sommerfeltii-iovm., so far south, 

 is a geographical puzzle. — E. S. M. It has long appeared to me 

 that we have two forms placed under this name ; one form with 

 longer hairs clothing the involucre and coarser ciliation of the 

 leaves than the other. I am not prepared to say which is Smith's 

 plant. The Lindfield plant seems to agree with specimens from 

 Chichester walls, gathered by the late Rev. F. H. Arnold, and 

 said by him to be from the station where Smith got the original 

 specimens. I have not as yet seen these. It is not H. Sommer- 

 feltii, nor var. splendens F. J. Hanb. — E. F. L." 



For the other notes on Hawkweeds, as for those on such 

 critical genera as Viola, Bubus, Rosa, Euphrasia, Mentha, and 



