SHORT NOTES 181 



S. 113. . . .'■ Sender describes this as " tomento breviore, dentibus 

 calycis campanulati ovalis acutis, corollse limbo concaviusculo." 

 The hybrid between P. elatior and P. officinalis Krause gives 

 as " X P. media (Petermann) Beyer Ver. bot. V. Prov. Brandeb. 

 29, S. 26." (Prahl, /. c.) Hennings named his/, uniflora in Schrif. 

 nat. V. Sch.-Holst. 2, 1, p. 185 (1876). In Mr. Miller Christy's 

 excellent account of the species (Journ. Linn. Soc. xxxiii, p. 172 

 (1897)) and its distribution, he does not notice these varieties. — A. 

 Bennett. 



JuNcus CASTANEUs ON Ben Lawers (p. 145). — Mr. L. Cum- 

 ming's remark that this is " rare or unknown on that mountain " is 

 contrary to my experience. Don (Fasc. Brit. PI. v, n. 85) claims to 

 have discovered it on Ben Lawers in 1791, and Smith, who first 

 described the species (Fl. Brit, i, 385, 1800) says Dickson and 

 Mackay gathered it on that hill. Balfour in the Excursions 

 observed it in 1817 and 1855 ; Boswell Syme (Eng. Bot. x, 15) 

 says he has " gathered it to the south, east, and west of the 

 peak" ; and I have specimens gathered by myself in 1874, 1888, 

 and 1898, and have many times observed it on my twenty-two 

 visits, including 1911, with the Internat. Phyto-Geographical 

 Excursion ; so that there is a fairly continuous history of its 

 occurrence during upwards of a century. Mr. Cumming's dis- 

 covery of C. rariflora (I assume he is certain of its correct identi- 

 fication) is one of great interest, and I know of no other record for 

 the Breadalbanes. I may add that I noticed a solitary example 

 of Veronica alpma on Ben Lawers in 1888 which I left untouched 

 — a plant which neither Buchanan White nor Peter Ewing ever 

 gathered there — indeed the latter was very sceptical of its occur- 

 rence. Mr. D. Haggart, whose knowledge of the hill is probably 

 unrivalled, tells me he has recently gathered it there. Saxifraga 

 rivularis still exists in small quantity. — G. Claridge Druce. 



BuBus FRUTicosus (p. 54). — I venture to point out several 

 considerations which make it impossible — in the view, I suppose, 

 of most students of the subject, including the Rev. W. Moyle 

 Rogers — to apply this name to B. rusticaiius Merc. 1. As Bab- 

 ington {British Bubi, pp. 65, 66) pointed out, the numbered 

 specimen in Linngeus's herbarium, under B. friiticosMS, is not B. 

 ncsticanus Merc, but B. plicatus (though fragments of the former, 

 unnumbered, are also present). Clearly B. fruticosus L. is an 

 aggregate species : and even if it were not so, our B. plicatus would 

 have first claim to the name. 2. Nyman's Conspectus shows that 

 B. rusticanus does not occur in Sweden. But B. fruticosus L. is 

 avowedly built up on Fl. Suecica ed. 1, and is used therefore in 

 Species Plantarum to cover a Swedish species. It cannot then 

 refer to B. rusticanus only. 3. The figure of " Camerar. in Matth. 

 Epit. Util., p. 751," affords no clue. It might, except for the 

 prickles, do as well for a Fragaria or Potentilla as for a Buhus. 

 4. In confirmation of the conclusion on which these facts con- 

 verge, it is worth noting that in ed. 3 of Species Plantarum (i, 707) 

 the leaves of B. fruticosus are described as " subtus subvillosa " ; 



