24 BRITISH EUPHRAST.E 



terminal and lateral teeth of the leaves and bracts. From E. curta 

 they differ in the peculiar form and small size of the leaves, and 

 in the very short pubescence. 



Yar. ARBUSCULA, var. nov. Plant small, 2-5 cm. high, green. 

 Stem much branched at the middle ; branches spreading then 

 ascending, often again branched, nearly as long as the stem. 



Planta nana, 2-5 cm. alta. viridis. Caulis in media parte ramosus,- 

 ramis arcuato-ascendentibus, srepe iterum ramosis, caulera quasi 

 gequantibus. Folia 3 cm. longa vix excedentia, inferiora obovato- 

 cuneata, dente terminali magno, subquadrato vel rotunda to, dentibus 

 utrinque 1-3 ovatis, obtusis. Bractea? ovatoe, dentibus utrinque 

 2-3, ovatis vel lanceolatis obtusis vel subacutis. Calycis dentes 

 lanceolati acuti bracteam superantes. Corolla 4-5 mm. longa, alba 

 vel lilaeina, striis violaceis et macula lutea notata. Capsula oblonga, 

 calycis dentes s^epe superans. Folia, bracteae et calyces minutissime 

 pubescentes. 



Westmorland. On the slope under Place Fell, south of Ulls- 

 water, Patterdale, Aug. 17th, 1915, C. BuckaaU, and Aug. 1916, 

 R. Nixon. — Derby. " Chelmerton — very high part of the Peak. 

 The common size — Sept. 20tli, 1862," C. E. Palmer, as Euphrasia 

 officinalis (Herb. Druee). 



This is remarkable for the small size of all its parts, for its 

 intricate branching and for the few obtuse teeth of the leaves and 

 bracts. Excessive branching is sometimes caused by the main stem 

 being bitten off or otherwise damaged, but that it is not so in this 

 case is proved by the presence of the main stem and b}" the regular 

 development of the plant. 



It is with considerable hesitation that I place these two forms 

 here as varieties of E. minima, and it is only after careful and 

 repeated comparison, and after having failed to find a closer relation- 

 ship with any other species, that I have at length decided to leave 

 them tem])orarily in this position. The chief differences, perhaps not 

 very imij:>rtant ones, that distinguish them from E. minima are: 

 (1) the crowding together of the lower leaves in var. nana, and 

 the numerous, often compound branches of var. a^^hnscula, which 

 are unlike those of any form of E. minima with which I am 

 acquainted; -unless Schur's " j^. humilis ramosissima =^ saxatilis'''' 

 to which Wettstein refers (Mon. p. 153) is connected with the 

 Patterdale plant. (2) The constanth^ pale colour of the Howers, 

 without any tendency to the yellow and violet which is often seen 

 in E. minima. As there is, however, a var. pallida of E. minima, 

 the pale colour of the flower does not of itself exclude our plants 

 from the group. Notwithstanding their similarity in many respects, 

 it remains doubtful whether they have been evolved from the same 

 ancestors as E. minima, and the two varieties appear to be so closely 

 related that if one is rejected the other can scarcely retain its 

 jK)sition. 



16. E. KKFtMORi AVetts. Stem shorter than in ^. ?i«9woro.srt', stout, 

 copiously branched, rarely simple ; internodes short ; branches 

 s})reading-ei\?ct, often oom|X)und, Spike with internodes short, but 

 not liiddi'ii by llic luticts except at the top. Leaves and bracts 



