326 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



the last page of this issue that a further departure from the 

 original plan of the Eeport which was adhered to for so many 

 years is in contemplation. We read that " next year, which 

 commences another volume of the ' Eeports,' it is proposed to 

 introduce a new feature, which will give experts additional time 

 to make their criticisms, and by wliich they will have all the 

 details before them, and which at the same time will save 

 much correspondence relating to the issuing of the Eeport. 

 Therefore the Secretary suggests that with the return Parcels 

 shall be included the printed Eeport, which will consist only of 

 the yearly Eeview and a full list of the Plants, with the explana- 

 tory notes supplied by the Contributor. The following year (1912) 

 will consist of 3 parts, (1) the Eeview for 1912, (2) the Criticisms 

 of the experts on the plants distributed in 1911, and (3) the list of 

 plants sent in 1912." We confess our inability to understand 

 exactly what is contemplated, but we presume that the Secre- 

 tary's " suggestion " is equivalent to a declaration of policy, so 

 must be contented to " wait and see." 



In the Eeport before us, forty pages are occupied exclusively 

 by Mr. Druce's notes. Mr. Druce also seems to have exercised a 

 general supervision over the remainder, which is copiously anno- 

 tated by him : it is edited by Dr. Moss, who contribiites many 

 notes of special interest — e. g. those on Salicornia ; other notes 

 are added by the referees and by the senders of specimens. Mr. 

 Druce's portion includes what appears to be a useful summary 

 (which, if space should allow, we hope to reprint) of the not 

 quite recent researches on Utricularia of Dr. Hugo Gliick (1902) 

 and Fr. Meister (1900). The notes vary considerably in value ; 

 many relate to records " in lit." of aliens whose identification 

 does not appear to have been vouched for by a competent 

 botanist. The numbers prefixed to each name apparently refer to 

 Mr. Druce's List, though this is not stated, nor are we told the 

 meaning of the often-prefixed asterisk ; if this indicates an 

 addition, one may be allowed to regret that it should be swelled 

 by such plants as Lycoims euroi^ceus var. dissectus Stokes, which 

 " apparently grades imperceptibly into the type." Other varieties 

 with little or no claim to distinctness have been exhumed from 

 various quarters wherein they might well have remained un- 

 disturbed ; we fail to see the gain (apart from that of making a 

 new combination) of adding to the British list such things as : — 



" Melilotus officinalis. Lam., var. unguiculata, Seringe, 

 ms., DC. 'Prod.' ii. 187, 1828 (sic) = leguminibus elongatis sterilibus 

 unguiformibus pedicellatis. Oxford. 



" M. alba, Desv., var. unguiculata (Seringe, in DC, ' Prod.' 

 ii. 187, 1825, under M. leiicantha), leguminibus elongatis sterilibus 

 unguiformibus pedicellatis. Oxford." 



Making all deductions, however, Mr. Druce's section of the 

 Eeport contains much interesting matter, though misprints are 

 rather numerous, and includes descriptions of the following appa- 

 rently new forms : — 



" Eanunculus bulbosus L. var. dunense Druce. Planta 



