1 88 THE SCOTTISH BOTANICAL REVIEW 



observation on Lonnroth's paper only refers to his "Thesis, 1854," 

 but in the " Bot. Notiser" for 1867 he gives excellent drawings of 

 all the Swedish species and amplifies the 1854 work. 



Under Poly gala vulgaris L., var. grandiflora Bab., he remarks, 

 " There are only two British specimens so named in the Herb. Mus. 

 Brit." But neither is Babington's plant ! or like it. The Faroe 

 one also is not the variety. The Irish plant is certainly a variety, 

 and Mr. Ball's herbarium name of buscifolia well describes it ; but 

 this was occupied, and so Nyman, " Consp. Fl. Europ.," p. 83, 1878, 

 named it P. Ballii. 



Mr. Williams sinks all the plants called (in Britain) P. amara, P. 

 amarella, P. uligiiiosa, and P. aiistriaca under P. afnara L. (1759). 



Under Empetrum nigrum L. it might have been recorded that 

 Boner found it in the Amberly Wildbrooks (Sussex) and Mitten 

 in Dorset. 



Under the Box he does not refer toBabington's note (" Phytologist," 

 21/1/1853) from Asser's " Life of King Alfred." 



The remainder of this part includes five species of Euphorbia, 

 and keeps up the original and suggestive ideas of former parts, though 

 to some it may seem that the treatment of the species is unequal, 

 especially as to distribution. 



The Shingle Beach as a Plant Habitat. By F. W. Oliver. 

 (Plate IV. and Eight Figures in the Text.) " New Phytologist," 

 vol. xi., No. 3, March 191 2. 



In this interesting and instructive paper Professor Oliver gives the 

 first instalment of what we hope may prove to be a monograph on 

 the shingle beaches of this country, which he is studying from the 

 point of view of their relations to plant habitat. 



After shortly discussing the origin of the four principal types of 

 shingle beaches, viz. (i) the Fringing Beach, (2) the Shingle Spit, 

 (3) the Shingle Bar, (4) Apposition Beaches, he proceeds to give 

 an account of the shingle spit and its modifications. 



In this certain new facts and views of geological importance are 

 set forth, such as can only be discussed fairly elsewhere; but atten- 

 tion should be especially given to the following points. The spit is 

 looked upon as having a phase of youth, under the organising in- 

 fluence of the littoral current, when its growth is mainly in length, 

 this being followed by a more or less prolonged phase of hook- 

 formation — a phase of maturity — when the spit becomes subject to 

 increasing tidal scour, which, in conjunction with heavy onshore 

 gales, leads to the transfer of material and the production of a 

 landward hook at its termination. Further, there may be reversions 

 to the juvenile straight-growing phase, and alternations of such phases 

 with those of maturity lead to spits having groups of hooks distri- 

 buted along their length. 



The mobility of the shingle on shingle spits is shown to be due to 

 (i) wave impact scattering stones over the crest, and, where more 



