52 THE SCOTTISH BOTANICAL REVIEW 
DC., ‘ Prod.,’ i. 178, by Rouy and Fouc., and defined: Epines des 
spires médianes sensiblement plus longues que le diametre de celles- 
ci; plante ordinairement velue-blanchatres, non glanduleuses. 
Found at Galashiels, 79, abundantly by Miss Ida Haward. This 
differs from type minima by its soft and whitish pubescence, and 
by its longer and straighter spines. De Candolle’s /ong?sefa is said to 
have longer peduncles bearing several flowers. The Galashiels plant 
would be put by many botanists as a sub-species. G. Claridge Druce. 
“883 6. Geum rivale, L., *var. pallidum, C. A. Meyer.—With pale 
greenish flowers, growing over a considerable area in East Lothian. 
S. Anderson, 7m Uz. 
“o58. Pyrus pinnatifida, Ehrh., var. arranensis (Hedl.).—Glen 
Sannox, Isle of Arran; by some botanists considered a distinct 
species. 
“966 e. Crategus oxyacantha, L., var. cuneata, Druce, in ‘Journ. 
Bot.,’ 272, 1910. Stylus i. Calyx pubescens. Folia cuneata, 
angusta, ovato-oblonga, a vertice 3 vel 4 brevibus segmentis divisa. 
Middlesex. Distinguished from type by the narrower cuneate leaves. 
“067 f. Crategus oxyacantha, L., var. guercifolia, Druce. Styl. i. 
Calyces et pedunculi densius hirsuti; foliis pallide virentibus 
pubescentibus, in textura molliter—papyraceis, rhomboidis ad bases 
late cuneatis; foliorum marginibus in 5-7 segmentis inequaliter 
divisis, segmentis obscure et diverse crenatis; ramis floriferis 
contortis. Kirkcudbright. G. Claridge Druce. 
“1297. Rudbeckia laciniata, L.—Quite naturalised in Forfarshire ; 
shown to me by R. D. Corstorphine. 
“‘rgr12 ds. Our British plant appears (teste Prof. Hugo Gltick) to 
be Veronica aquatica, S. F. Gray, ‘ Nat. Coll. Br. Pl.’ ii. 306, 1821, 
distinguished from V. Anagaliis by its less crowded racemes and its 
patent or reflexed peduncles.” 
There is a note by Mrs. Gregory upon her var. dversa of Viola 
Riviniana, Reichenb., but we do not reprint it as there is no full 
description. 
Mr. Druce also gives a most valuable summary of the work done 
by Dr. Hugo Glick and Fr. Meister upon U¢ricudaria, which should 
be referred to by all those interested in that genus. We extract the 
following, as it may help our readers in obtaining reliable records 
for the difficult U. Avemii at present doubtfully recorded for 
Scotland from 81? Gordon Moss. 85? Loch of Spynie and Moss 
of Instoch :-— 
“Dr Glick says the characters which distinguish Bremiz from 
minor are specific, this species bearing much the same relation to 
U. minor as U. major does to U. vulgaris. The larger flowers of a 
darker yellow, with a much larger lip which stares at one, are easy 
marks of distinction, but in the barren state a greater or less amount 
of development of leaf-segments and a more sparing development of 
bladders are not sufficient for separation, although such an appear- 
ance may be suggestive. 
‘* As to the leaf-characters of the U¢ricudarie one may add that our 
