SHORT NOTES. 251 



marginal line round the lip is also a good character in this species ; 

 I see no trace of any such line in Dr. White's plant, and I do not 

 think his plant can be any form of 0. incarnata Linn. The old 

 plate of Sowerby's (Engl. Bot. t. 2308) of 0. latifolia, which is 

 reproduced in Syme's Engl. Bot. with the new name 0. incarnata, I 

 would still call O. latifolia ; the spike is too lax, and slightly wider 

 at the base {i. e., not exactly oblong as in 0. incarnata Linn.), the 

 lower bracts are too long for 0. incarnata Linn. Nor have I ever 

 seen the flowers so purple in 0. incarnata. Any botanist who visits 

 Bransbury Common between the 24th and 30tli of June can find, 

 in plenty, three very distinct plants there, viz., 0. maciilata Linn., 

 O latifolia Linn., and the plant I have maintained to be 0. incarnata 

 Linn. — C. B. Claeke. 



Ranunculus acris L. — Mr. Townsend's recent paper (p. 140, ante), 

 explaining that this name is properly applicable to R. Bora^amis, 

 instead of to ft. Steveni, removes a difficulty which must have been 

 felt by all who have endeavoured to understand these j)lauts. For 

 some time I have considered Borccanus to be the common plant 

 of Surrey, I have met with what I understand to be R. Steveni 

 in but a single station — on the chalk, at the extreme eastern 

 end of Surrey. Li each of the two specimens obtained the 

 horizontal rhizome was about 3 in. in length, bearing two tufts 

 of leaves and flower-stems separated by that distance. Having 

 only a small knife with me at that time, I was unable to ascer- 

 tain the real extent of the rhizome. According to Jordan, as 

 quoted by Lloyd (' Fl. d'Ouest'), it would appear that the root- 

 stock is not only creeping, but branching, so that the plant soon 

 "covers a large area." It is not to be expected that on a hard 

 clialky bank the rhizome would run so freely as in a loose, open 

 soil, and I hope to get the plant and grow it. I endeavoured to do 

 so last year, but the road had been re-made and banked up, and 

 the plant was not to be found. I hope that Mr. Townsend will 

 some day give the distribution of Fi. Steveni in Britain, as at present 

 known. — W. H. Beeby. 



Autumnal Flowering of Mercurialis perennis. — At page 22, Mr. 

 F. J. George has a note on a variety or state of this plant which seems 

 habitually to flower in the autumn, and which he proposes to make 

 into a named variety chiefly for that reason. Turning to my diary 

 for 1883, I find a record of M. perennis being in flower at Warboys 

 Wood (Hants Co. 31) on October 28tli ; and, unless my memory 

 greatly misleads me, I have noticed the autumnal flowering of some 

 few plants of this species in nearly every subsequent year. Indeed, 

 until I read Mr. George's interesting note, I supposed this species, 

 like many others that usually flower early in the year, habitually 

 produced a few flowers in warm autumns, just as often as primroses 

 and violets anticipate the spring. But on the other hand, this 

 second flowering is characteristic of some species, such as Caltha 

 jKilustris, which habitually flowers in September in hot or cold 

 years alike. Possibly this may also be the case with M. perennis. — 

 Alfred Fryer. 



