152 FLORA OF SOMERSET. 



arvensis a colonist, after comparing its condition in Somerset with 

 that in Teneriffe, where it grows in turf amid the indigenous vege- 

 tation. The distribution of Uiex nanus, given entirely on the 

 author's authority, is a valuable addition to our knowledge of its 

 range in the south-western counties. It is pointed out that the name 

 Primus fruticans, now applied by Dr. Focke to a rare hybrid 

 (P. insititia x spinosa), must be used more carefully in England 

 than hitherto. Four localities are recorded for Apiiim nodijioruw 

 var. repens, but should not these be referred to the much commoner 

 var. ocreatum, so often mistaken for the first. " The claim of 

 Senccio saracenicus to be considered native rests on exactly tbe same 

 evidence as that of Aconitum Napellus.'" This remark should be 

 compared with DeCandolle's opinion that, considering their range 

 and history, the former should be admitted as a native, the latter 

 an introduction, thus differing even more than Mr. Murray from 

 the views expressed in the London Catalogue. A possible difference 

 between our blue pimpernel and A nagalUs canilca Schreb. is suggested 

 by the greater distinctness of the latter from A, arvensis in S. Europe 

 and Teneriffe, both in form and in range. It is satisfactory to see 

 the query before .S. ainhigua Sm. as a synonym for Stachys palustris x 

 sylvestris. Smith's plant was described and figured from a form 

 plentiful in potato-fields in Orkney, and was doubtless one of the dry- 

 ground conditions of S. palustris. No mention is made of Babington's 

 Atriplex microsperma, found near Bath and described by him in his 

 monograph of the British Atriplicece. An interesting history of 

 Euphorbia pilosa (which still survives in its one British station near 

 Bath) will be found on page 295. Elodea canadensis in Somerset, 

 as elsewhere, appears to be decreasing again. Mr. White's note 

 on an intermediate between Jnncus compressus and Gerardi is here 

 put into print for the third time. A new variety of Potamogeton 

 pusillus, submitted to Mr. A. Bennett from Baltonsborough, was 

 called by him pseudo-tricJwidcs. The same authority has pro- 

 nounced a grass from Pensford to be Glyceria plicata var. suhspicata 

 Parnell. 



The list of Puhi, extending to twenty-four pages, must be the 

 subject of special congratulation to the author. The frequently 

 occurring names of Focke, Moyle Eogers, and Linton are a suffi- 

 cient guarantee of its excellence, and the great number of localities 

 supplied by Mr. White and Mr. Fry attest the energy of local rubo- 

 logists. The Willows, arranged according to Dr. Buchanan White's 

 plan, are well worked out. The records, too, of the Ca rices are 

 unusually complete and, being largely due to the author's unaided 

 work, bear witness to his long- con tinned researches in the county. 



A few points present themselves for criticism. The nomenclature 

 usually accepted by British writers seems to have been needlessly 

 discarded. No less than eight genera (including Ficaiia and 

 Elodes) now generally disused will be found in the first sixty pages. 

 The same reactionary tendency is shown in the author's protests 

 against the usual systematic position of Par7iassia and Empetrum. 

 Changes in specific names are numerous, some of them certainly 

 necessary on grounds of priority. Numerous errors of omission 



