Additional Floristic Results. 113 
20. Ranunculus acris L. On Crossfell a Buttercup occurred 
which I think must be referred to R. acris var. Nathorstii (Berl.), 
Druce, Ann. Scot. Nat. Hist. (1900) 166. I think it is the same as 
the large flowered Ben Lawers plant, gathered by me in 1897, and 
which Herr Freyn named R. Nathorstii A. Berlin in Ofvers. af K. 
vet.-Akad. Forhandl, (1884), N.7, pp. 20-21, a reference which I 
have been unable to verify. Dr. Graebner has grown it at Berlin, 
and finds it keeps its characters. It is the first record for England. 
But, as Freyn says, our Nathorstii does not exactly agree with the 
East Greenland plant, for the shape of the leaves is not quite the 
same. The carpels have a long beak. 
48. Caltha palustris L. The small creeping form of this plant, 
which is the var. minor DC. of my List, was gathered by Dr. 
Graebner on Crossfell, and this also retains its character in culture 
and keeps quite distinct he says from C. radicans Forst. 
77c. Castalia alba var. occidentalis Ostenf. in New Phyr., 
p- 116, 1912, under Nymphea vel Castalia. By this name Dr. 
Ostenteld now describes the plant which he showed us in Perthshire 
and then thought to be Nymphaea candida (New Puyr. (1911), 307) 
as also the plants gathered in Co. Galway. They would have been 
passed by me for C. alba var. minor (DC.), but Dr. Ostenfeld shewed 
us certain characters which separated them, he thought, from alba 
and induced him to name them candida. But as I pointed out 
(p- 308), candida, which I only knew from description, is itself a very 
critical and variable plant and in some parts of Germany where 
C. alba and candida grow together the two forms are with difficulty 
separated. Even in Dr. Ostenfeld’s figure of our British plant the 
section of the ovary appears to be nearer to candida than to alba. 
I may also say that after I wrote my paper, on examining the pollen 
of our plants under a 4-inch objective with that of candida with 
which I had been supplied, I found that it did not agree. We may 
therefore accept Dr. Ostenfeld’s identification as being probably 
correct. Whether it is distinct from minor DC. has yet to be shewn, 
but it is quite likely a different form, and, perhaps, as Dr. Ostenfeld 
suggests, a plant of “ acid-humus ” habitats, whereas alba is found 
in more basic water. I saw it this year near Llanberis in 
Carnarvonshire, and although I was not able to gather it, almost 
certainly the same form was on the Moor of Rannoch. 
In the Flora of Hampshire, p. 19, 1904, there is a reference to 
Nymphea alba minor as occurring in 1739: “in these pools 1 observed 
to grow (between Lyndhurst and Brockenhurst) both the small and 
great Water Lily; they were in blossom together, so that the 
distinction was easily made, and the difference was pretty remarkable,” 
and I have noticed the same form in Virginia Water, Surrey and 
Berks. It will be interesting to see if these are distinct from Dr. 
Ostenfeld’s variety. We may add that Caspary, an acknowledged 
authority on Water Lilies, treated candida as a variety of N. alba, 
and many authors consider it only a sub-species. 
294. Viola Riviniana Reichb. var. pseudomirabilis (Coste) 
Gregory. This is the plant described by Dr. Rübel (p. 55) as V 
silvestris var. pseudomirabilis, but more correctly placed as above by 
Mrs. Gregory in her British Violets (1912) under the above species. 
Coste (Bull. Soc. Bot. Fr.XL. (1893), p. CXV described it as a species 
while Becker (Mon. Violae, p. 12, 1910) treats it as a hybrid of 
