108 Mr. Turner's Remarks upon 



years since by Col. Velley. There is a smaller specimen, marked 

 ''junior," which may be a distinct species, but is much bleached. 



40. C. diaphana. Fl. Scot. — I cannot doubt but C. nodulosa, 

 Fl. Aug. is the same plant. 



41. C . purpurascens. Fl. Aug. 



42. C. gdatinosa. Linn. 



43. A small variety of the same. 



44. C. mutabilis. Roth. , 



45. This has always been considered an alpine variety of C. ge- 

 latinosa ; but some specimens I gathered last summer in Llyn 

 Fynnon Velan, an alpine lake on Snowdon, where I had an oppor- 

 tunity of examining it recent, lead me strongly to suspect it will 

 prove a distinct species. 



46. C. atra. Fl. Aug. 



47. C.fluviatilis. Linn. 



48. C. torulosa. Roth. — Is it really distinct from the preceding? 



TREMELL^. 



No. 1. Viva lactuca. Linn. 



2. The same var. (2. Fl. Aug. — Very different from U. lubrica of 

 Roth, to which it is referred in the Catalecta Botanica. 



3. U. umbilicalis. Linn. 



4. There is no specimen of this in the Herbarium ; but, both 

 from the description and figure, it cannot be doubted that 

 Dr. Roth is right in referring it to his U. plantaginea. 



Of 5. and (). the labels are evidently transposed ; that which 

 ought to bear the former comprises eight specimens of U. linza, 

 Fl. Dan., their apices turned downwards, and curiously placed 

 together so ass to look like a base, their roots all pointing upward. 

 This is not badly represented in the figure. Of Ko. (). there are 



two 



