SItOllT NOTES ;jiO 



P. Btihiiu/tonii — all placed by them under P. liicena X prcBlonr/ns 

 Caspaiy in Das PJianzenreich, xxxi. 137, 1907, form a collection too 

 diverse to be so included. 



Tiselius originally described his plant as P. upsaliensis in Bot. 

 Notiser, 1881?, 15; later in his Pot. Suec. exsic. fasc. 11 (1895), he 

 divided it into two species, P. decipiens and P. upsaliensis. In Bot. 

 Notiser he had made it into two series A. and B., with three forms 

 under each. Dr. Hagstrom (Crit. lies. Potamoget. pp. 213-21;5 : 

 191(5) establishes three new varieties under P. decijjie/is Nolte, and 

 jilaces the upsaliensis of Tiselius f. (jenuinus (I.e. Nos. 79, 80) and 

 f. intercedens (No. 81) under his y. longifolius — '* Folia longiora 

 subangustata, 150-200 mm. longa, '20 mm. lata." To this I consider 

 Miss lloper's specimens to belong, as they accord well with a series 

 ])r. Tiselius sent me. Magnin (Bull. Soc. Bot. France, xliii. 443 : 

 1896) places it under P. decipiens as a subspecies. Ascherson and 

 Graebner in their latest work (Syn. Fl. Mittenp. ed. 2, 506: 1913) 

 still retain it under P. prwlongus X lucens as P. upsaliensis, but the 

 involved nomenclature of the S^mopsis is difficult to quote unless at 

 great length, and the opinion of the authors (to me in lift.) is so 

 variable that I place no dependence on their naming. Our plant 

 following Dr. Hagstrom is P. decipiens Nolte var. y. loufjij^olius 

 Hagst., Dr. Tiselius's name is cited only as a synonym : the making 

 of new varieties and jjetty forms is one of the faults of Dr. Hagstrom's 

 sjilendid work. — A. Bex>ett. 



Lepidium campestre var. longistyllm (p. 324). — -I have by the 

 courtesy of the Dublin Museum seen More's plant mentioned by 

 Mr. Jackson : Miss Knowles, the curator, has added a reference to 

 The Natural Histori/ Review, July 1860, p. 434. We find there 

 under Proceedings of Societies : " The following paper hy A. Gr. 



More, F.L.S., was read : — Lepidiiun campestre . . . var. lomji- 



sti/lum, with many stems springing from a biennial root, and the 

 style, about twice as long as the notch, occurred in a cultivated 

 field near Lunghall. This variety is likely to be mistaken for 

 L. Smithii, but for its scaly pouch." This is apparently the only 

 place of publication, but it appears valid. The variety, however, 

 seems scarceh^ of note. Its styles are no longer than is common in 

 L. campestre, but none of the silicula? are mature, hence, as common 

 in L. campestre at that stage of development, they are "twice as long 

 as the notch." In mature fruit, the sides grow up and equal or exceed 

 the style which does not lengthen. Syme (E. B. i. 217: 1863) 

 mentions this, " The style should be examined in mature pods, as it 

 considerably exceeds the notch until the wings are fully developed." 

 The question remains as to whether the name should be retained, 

 " descriptione emendata," as a many-stemmed variety. Syme says foj- 

 L. campestre, "Stem sub- solitary .^ . . " and " stem .... solitary and 

 2 or 3 from the same rosette." Thellung in his monograph (in Neue 

 Denkschr. vSchweiz. Ges. Naturwiss. xli. 1907— not 1906) says fp. 93), 

 " Caulis fere semper unicus." Specimens in the National Herbarium 

 show more than one stem, but the occurrence is rai-e. It is perhaps 

 explicable by reference to what happens in L. Smithii. This is sup- 

 posed always to have many stems, the fact being used as a diagnostic 



