306 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



second appears to be S. Fuchsii Gmel. Fl. Bad. hi. 444, as described 

 in the Prodromus (I.e.). My examples are from a roadside near 

 Colonsay House, Colonsay, N. Ebudes (W. F. Miller, Aug. 3rd, 

 1886), and from a roadside, Leggygowan, Saintsfield, Co. Down, 

 Ireland (C. H. Waddell, July 16th, 1905), noted as "probably an 

 escape, but has grown here for many years." It seems to bloom 

 considerably earlier, and is much more slender. The stem-leaves 

 are a good deal narrower (an inch across at most), linear-lanceo- 

 late, gradually narrowed to the base and the long apex, very 

 finely (in some cases almost imperceptibly) serrate ; heads fewer 

 and smaller, with fewer phyllaries, and ray-florets not exceeding 

 six in number ; pappus falling short of the disc-florets. S. Fuchsii 

 is said by De Candolle and Eouy to grow in hilly woods, and 

 occurs as far west as Belgium and France. No doubt it was 

 introduced into the two stations mentioned above, but there is a 

 possibility of its occurrence in this country under less suspicious 

 circumstances. — Edward S. Marshall. 



Alchemilla conjuncta Bab. — This was left out of the London 

 Catalogue, ed 10 ; I believe, on the recommendation of the Eev. 

 E. F. Linton, who agreed with M. Buser that its real occurrence 

 in Britain was very questionable. Mr. Druce retains it in his 

 List of British Plants (as A. argentea G. Don = ? alpina x 

 vulgaris), with a query after the vice-comital census number. 

 Syme (English Botany, ed. 3, p. 139) doubted its being wild in 

 Britain ; but Babington (Manual, ed. 8, 1881, p. 103) marks it as 

 having been seen by him from Clova and from Glen Sannox, 

 Arran. This year I made the acquaintance of Mr. H. Slater, now 

 living at Stawell, near Bridgwater, who informed me that he, in 

 company with his parents, had found it sparingly in Glen Sannox, 

 between 1870 and 1880, and had grown it ever since. He 

 very kindly sent me a living plant, which is, clearly, the right 

 thing. My only herbarium specimen is a cultivated one from 

 Mr. Bennett. Mr. Beeby sent me the following note on it : — "The 

 root is from Cumberland, p. [per ?] Eev. E. Wood (v. Bot. Exch. 

 Club Eeport, 1881). Conf. Annals Scott. Nat. Hist. 1906, p. 121." 

 I have grown both this and A. alpina L. for several years; the 

 latter does not spread by seeding in the garden, whereas A. 

 conjuncta reproduces itself rather freely, and keeps quite true. 

 I see no trace of A. vulgaris whatever. Apparently, therefore, 

 the omission from Lond. Cat. was quite premature. — Edward S. 

 Marshall. 



Nepeta Glechoma var. parviflora Benth. (p. 253). — At the 

 end of her very interesting paper Miss Armitage asks why this 

 was omitted from the tenth edition of the London Catalogue. 

 Many years ago I consulted Mr. Beeby about it ; he answered 

 that the species was trimorphic, and that he considered the variety 

 to be not worth keeping up. I have since then occasionally come 

 across plants which agreed with the description ; to me also they 

 did not seem to be more than a very slight variation. The 



