PROCEEniNGS OF THE 



grew around Haarlem niiglit possibly be 0. prcrtermissd, but 

 Linnaeus said " Variat loliis niatrulatis & imniaculatis,'' which 

 iiulicates that hybrids with 0, maculata, or perhaps 0. majalis, were 

 incliultHJ. This was, however, his earliest work on the subject, 

 beinj: ])uhlislu'd in 1737 before he saw Vaillant's orchids or 

 travelled in Olaiid. The Vaillant plant referred to, seen in situ 

 by Linnanis in 173S, was the most common one round Paris with 

 unspotted leaves : also probably 0. pr(ttermissa. Of the J3auhin 

 ])laiits, tlie " type " of 17o3 and the var. /3, which are respectively 

 the var. u and " type" of his 17-10 paper iu Act. Upsal., are both 

 unspotted-leaved plants, the " non maculata '' and " latifolia " of 

 the pre-Linnean authors ; most likely both were forms of 0. prce- 

 tenniss'i. The var. e of the ' Species Plantarum ' was probably 

 0. mdjdlis, for the fi<2;ure in Uudb. Elys, is good iwijaJis. All of 

 this iudicates that by 0. latifoUn LinuKus had primarily in mind 

 0. pnetermissa. T3ut Linnaeus, in his description of 1755, says that 

 the leaves are slightly spotted. This may refer to the decay spots 

 on the plant in his herbarium, for this note was made when he 

 descrii)ed 0. incarnata in the ^1":^. notes in his copy of the 'Flora 

 Suecica,' ed. 1, or it may refer to the hybrid forms with spotted 

 leaves which occur where 0. pnvtermiam and 0. riiacuhtta occur 

 together. The descri])tion of 0. incarnata refers to the form so 

 named by British botanists to-day. liinna^us knew 0. prrrtemussa, 

 and included it under n. 72S of Fl. Suec. ed. 1, whic-h became 

 0. Intifolia. It seems fairly clear that by O. latifolia Linmeus in 

 1755 understood O. pra;iermi.ssa, perhaps including the hybrid 

 with maculata. Certainly he did not intend O. majalis, Eeichb. 



A discussion followed in which Mr. W. X. Edwards (visitor), 

 :\rr. C. C. Lacaita, Mr. T. A. Dymes, :\rr. II. W. Pugsley, and 

 Lord Eothschild engaged, the author re])lying. 



Mr. T. A. Spragub then gave a description, with a large number 

 of specimens, of Twin-leaves and other abnormalities in the 

 Common Ash, Fraxinus excelsior. 



Specimens were shown of the following abnormalities: — 

 1. Fasciated stems, -with dichotomous branching. 2. Bud- 

 variation, with narrow caudate-acuminate leaflets. 3. Accessory 

 leaflets ; one or both leaflets of a pair replaced by sessile or stalked 

 bifoliolate pinnae. 4. False accessory leaflets, by suppression of the 

 internode above the lower pair of leaflets. 5. Confluent leaflets. 

 6. Twin-leaves aiul Triplets : occurring in various forms — Nature 

 of leaf-twinning — Cause of this abnormality, probably hyper- 

 trophy — Significance of accessory and twin-leaves. 7. Auiso- 

 phylly, the foliage leaf having a bud-scale as its nodal companion. 

 S. Suppression of a leaf: examples shown of complete or partial 

 suppression of one leaf of a pair without disturbance of the 

 opposite-decussate phyllotaxy, which continues as thou<::h the 

 missing leaf were present. 



