142 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



Hambledon, Surrey, and an example forwarded for examination. 

 To my intense surprise it was undoubtedly A. pubescens Lam. 

 Mr. E. B. Bishop, the discoverer, kindly took me to the spot and 

 showed me the plants— a clump of three or four— in situ; the 

 locality was a sandy, gorse-and-heather-growing situation, and 

 there was nothing "suspicious" in the neighbourhood. I was 

 not, however, quite satisfied that it should be considered a new 

 British plant without further investigation, and, on making some 

 enquiries in the village, and obtaining particulars in other ways, 

 eventually it was ascertained that its origin was to be explained 

 in quite a simple manner. I cannot do better than quote from a 

 letter from the former owner of a large house not very far from 

 the spot where the plant grew : — " I remember the plant quite 

 well. I probably got it in Norway in 1891, but am not now 

 certain. When I sent plants by post my gardener used to put 

 them in the shade of a very high hedge to the west [in the 

 garden] . I remember the plant being there. At the point you 

 say the plant was found, rubbish from that corner of the garden 

 used to be thrown, as the gorse and the conformation of the 

 ground concealed it. Either the plant was grubbed up and 

 thrown there after I left or its seeds were put there with other 

 stuff when tidying up." I have given this explanation at some 

 length as showing how necessary it is to make enquiries before 

 publishing a "new record," there being nothing as regards 

 distribution, latitude, &c, against A. pubescens being native in 

 this land. — C. E. Salmon. 



Sagina scotica Druce (p. 89). — Mr. Bennett writes that a 

 plant which my wife and I collected (August 20th, 1887) on the 

 very summit of Ben Lawers (3984 ft.), associated with S. nivalis Fr. 

 and S. saginoides Dalla Torre (S. Linncei Presl ; S. saxatilis Wimm.), 

 is this species. The robust habit, long pedicels, and large cap- 

 sules (many of which had already shed their seeds, though others 

 contained plenty) at once caught my eye ; and I appear to have 

 written to him that " it seemed very different from saxatilis, when 

 fresh ; the plant figured in Sm. E. B. as Stellaria saginoides" He 

 kindly sent specimens of this and other Ben Lawers gatherings, 

 made on the same day or four days later, to Prof. J. Lange, of 

 Copenhagen, who called them " S. saxatilis, forma" ; 1 accordingly 

 left them under that, and for a long time forgot the matter. Mr. 

 Bennett urges (and I fully concur) that E. B. 2105 is really 

 S'. scotica. This can hardly be a hybrid between S. procumbens 

 and 8. saginoides, both of which have smaller fruit and petals 

 (usually none, in the former) ; and I quite think that Mr. Druce is 

 right in describing it as a species. Dr. Moss showed me roots of 

 S. scotica growing in his Cambridge garden, early last June ; and, 

 at that stage — not yet flowering — the resemblance to S. pro- 

 cumbens is great. I have specimens of good S. scotica from 

 Craig-an-lochan, near Killin, 88 Mid-Perth ; Canlochan Glen, 

 90 Forfar ; and Meall Buidhe (adjoining Ben Dothaidh, where 

 Mr. Druce found it), 98 Argyle. Some other gatherings in my 



