1918-19.] BOTANICAL SOCIETY OF EDINBURGH 319 



U.S.A. plant are not from " E. Chicago Lake, Ind.," but 

 from Wolf Lake, Hammond, Ind. Then again he suggests 

 his hybrid plant shall bear my name of strict if alius, and 

 the Canadian plant be renamed. Why ? I protest against 

 such a course ; there is no reason for it. Let Dr. Hagstrom 

 name his hybrid as he likes, but my plant must bear the 

 name I have given it. 



P. geinmiparios, Robbins (United States). — Referred by 

 the author to P. rutilus, Wolf, x Vaseyii, Robb. I much 

 wonder what American botanists will say to this 

 combination. 



P. paiiormitanus, Biv. — Here the author shows by an 

 excellent piece of writing that this must be held a separate 

 species from pusillus, notwithstanding the opinion of 

 Italian botanists that it is only a synonym of pusillus. 

 The following are additional localities to those given by 

 Dr. Hagstrom : Mery-sur-Seine (Aube), France, Hariot ; 

 A^alais, Switzerland, Herb. Thomas; Louisiana, Durand, 

 No. 672, U.S.A. ; San Luis Potosi, Mexico, J. G. Schaifner. 



P. antaicus, Hagst. (Canary Islands). — The author need 

 not doubt this being a new species and quite separate from 

 P. denticulatus, Link ! Link's species is nearest to P. 

 trichoides, C. et S., and P. condylocarpus, Tausch. 



P. Berteroanus, Phill., and P. Aschersoni, Ar. Benn. 

 (S. America). — No doubt these have been confused, even 

 by Phillipi himself; but the pusilhis section in South 

 America needs careful working out. The specimens are 

 mostly very poor, and without soaking out are simply 

 puzzles. 



P. orientalis, Hagst. (Asiatic). — He here solves a problem 

 that no one attempted, though for some years I had this 

 laid aside as a nov. sp. with drawings. Whether the 

 Chinese and Corean specimens can be placed here is to 

 me yet doubtful, as contrasted with the Japanese. 



P. obtusifolius, M. et K. — Authors have accepted the 

 reference of Lessing's P. tartaricus to this species without 

 demur. But the author's description seems to me to place 

 it outside, one item alone, " multinervis," being decisive, 

 and he notes it cannot come under " Merton and Koch's 

 species zosterifolius or compressus, L. (here evidently 

 referring to P. Friesii, Rupr.) or pusillus, L." I am 



