SnOET NOTES. -337 



Atriplex Bahmcftonii, Woods, passed in England for A. rosea, Linn. — 

 J. L. Warren-. [Mr. Warren's plant is the real A. rosea of Linnoeus, 

 a frequent continental species ; but not native here. It is not a mari- 

 time plant. The only previous record of its occurrence in Eagland 

 will be found in our vol. for 1866, p. 150, in an account of the in- 

 troduced casuals which appeared at Mitcham in 1865. Though at first 

 in England A. Baiingtonii, Woods, was thought to be this, yet trae A 

 rosea, L., is much nearer to A. laciniata, L. = A. arenaria, AYoods, 

 than to that species; indeed by some botanists {e.g., 'BQ-n.thdim.) laciniata 

 and rosea are combined. — Ed. Journ. Bot.'] 



Vallisn-eria spiralis (p. 276). — With reference to the rapid growth 

 of the flower- stalk in this plant, Mr. W. W. Reeves, in a letter to 

 Mr. A. W. Bennett, states that he observed one to grow twelve inches 

 in length between 4 p.m. of one day and 12 of the next. 



EuMEx RUPESTRis, Le Gall. —Mr. Archer Briggs' determination of 

 this Dock in the West of Knglaad (see p. 294) deserves a few words of 

 comment. Having been favoured by him with specimens from the 

 localities mentioned, I have been able to compare them with Le Grail's 

 original full description in the "Flore de Morbihan" (1852), p. 501, 

 and — as was also done by Mr. Briggs — with a cultivated specimen 

 named "i?. rupestris, Le Gall," by that accurate botanist, the late M. 

 L Gay. The seed from which this last specimen was gro^n was col- 

 lected on the coast of the west of Normandy. I have failed to obtain any 

 more authentic material for the species than this, but so far as this 

 goes I am quite prepared to endorse Mr. Briggs' identification. It 

 may be advisable to mention here that several botanists have more or 

 less doubtfully affixed the name " rw^^s^fWs " to what appear to be 

 coast forms of R. conglomeratus. This is the case with the plant col- 

 lected at Lewes Levels, Sussex, in 1874, and noticed in the "Bot. 

 Exchange Club Report" (see p. 345), which form I have seen, I 

 believe, in more than one spot on the south coast. The only British 

 specimen I have examined which corresponds with the Devon and Corn- 

 wall plant is from Mr.Beeby, of Croydon, who collected it at St. Mary's, 

 Scilly Isles, in July, 1873, and then sent it as probably R. rupes- 

 tris. It was in too young a state for certain identification at the time, 

 but is no doubt the same as Mr. Briggs' plants. Prof. Babington in- 

 forms me that the Jersey plant mentioned in his Manual (ed. 5 

 (1862) and succeeding editions), and which was collected in 1842 by 

 Mr. Newbould, is certainly the same as the Cornish plant. So far, R. 

 rupestris seems to be a coast species with distinctly western tendencies. 

 In connection, however, with this point the Rev. W. W. Newbould 

 tells me that the late Mr. Borrer pointed out to him near Henfield 

 the plant sent to Sowerby for figuring in " English Botany." and 

 actually published in that work (tab. 1553) as R. acutus, L., and he 

 assures me that this was true R. rupestris. The original drawing in 

 the British Mus-um represents a plant with tapering leaf-bases and 

 apparently three tubercles, and is therefore not inconsistent with this, 

 but the specimen was evidently immature. The plate, somewhat 

 modified, does duty for R. sanguineus in the most recent edition, 



