1G4 ON SOME DOUBTFrL SPECIES IN THE CnESHIllE FLOEA. 



reasons why the record of a plant is douhtful are : — The record is 

 obsolete ; extinction is suspected ; a misnomer is likely from the 

 plant being a critical one ; the synonymy of the specific name has 

 shifted during the last few years ; the record is vague and may over- 

 step the county boundary ; the plant may really occur, but with us 

 be not native. The plants subsequently commented upon will supply 

 obvious instances of doubts arising from these respective causes. 



Cochlear ia officinalis, <'Linn.," Syme. There is no certain record 

 for the true and restricted plant. The confusion has probably arisen 

 from the fact that there occurs with us, as at Bromborough, a stunted 

 form of C. angJica with subcordate leaf bases, unlike the South Eng- 

 land form, which I suspect may have been taken for true C. offici- 

 nalis. See U. C. Re2}.,\^l\. This form deserves further study, and 

 may prove a distinct sub-species of C. 2>olymorpha. 



Folygala oxijptera, Reich. The comital experiences of this plant 

 seem hardly to bear out the idea that it is worth the separate number 

 accorded to it in Lond. Cat., ed. vii. It now appears with us to 

 range inland, whereas our published records restrict it to the coast 

 line. Its close congener, or rather fellow- variety, P. eu-vulgaris, Syme, 

 occurs also in central Cheshire. P. dejjressa remains always abundantly 

 distinct, and is widely diifused. 



Stellar ia glauca, With. This is a case where actual occurrence 

 within our limits becomes doubtful from vagueness of boundary. In 

 the one record, Dr. Gordon's, now an old one of some 40 years back, 

 the area referred may be either Denbigh, the south-west side of 

 Cheshire, or an isolated patch of Flintshire lying due south of Malpas. 

 Dr. Gordon clearly knew the species, and it is one that should be 

 borne in mind as one very likely to be refound. 



Euovymus europceus, Linn. The difficulty here is whether the 

 species be native in its sole station at Cotterill AVood. Its occur- 

 rence there is certain, as I have seen specimens thence. The plant 

 seems with us to occupy the same category as Cormts. The latter is 

 frequently planted as underwood in Cheshire preserves, but it is 

 difficult enough to find it in a Cheshire hedge, whereas round London 

 it would be nearly impossible to look over a mile of hedge-row pro- 

 perly without certainly finding Co7iius, and probably finding 

 Euonymus. 



Lotus tenuis, Kit. All the given records require confirmation. I 

 have seen no specimens, neither have any of my coadjutors. The 

 plant was certainly in South Lancashire, on Mr. Webb's authority. 

 I can get it no nearer, but it is very likely to occur when properly 

 known and searched for. 



Primus Cerasus, " Linn.," Syme. With *' leaves firm, erect," 

 as opposed to P. avium, with "leaves flaccid, drooping," is a 

 notable instance with us as elsewhere of ambiguous synonymy. Spe- 

 cimens of the former — the Dwarf Morello Cherry — not the latter — 

 the common tree Merry — should be sought for in Cheshire during the 

 present season. Care must be taken not to gather the stunted and 

 clipped Merries so usual in Cheshire hedges. 



Myriophyllwn verticillatum, Linn. I have seen no specimens, 

 neither have Messrs. Webb or Brown. The nearest occurrence to our 



