. 289 
MAIANTHEMUM BIFOLIUM SCHMIDT. 
ARTHUR BENNETT, 
Croydon. 
In the Journal of Botany for July, Mr. Jackson has an interest- 
ing paper on the above species. He there acts as a pleader for 
the plant as a native of Middlesex where it was found by Hunter 
in 1818, and indirectly impugns the nativity of the Yorkshire 
station (Forge Valley, near Scarborough). Hunter mentions 
it as growing in a wood (Caen or Ken Wood) with Convallaria 
majalis, C. verticillata and C. Polygonatum. These two latter 
species would seem to me to at once suggest doubt as to the 
other being native there. While the same argument that Mr. 
Wheldon uses with the Yorkshire plant, “ that the plant does 
not occur in other woods,’ may be used with the Caen Wood 
plant, why does it not occur in Bishop’s Wood, or other woods 
near or at the north of Caen Wood. Another thing may be 
urged, plants must have their range-end somewhere and it is 
quite possible the species may have been far wider distributed 
in England than at present. At the same time the planting of 
trees does introduce plants, and a fair guess may often be made 
as to how long the plants have been there by the age of the 
trees. Of course, being a species found over nearly the whole 
of Europe, it may quite well be native in Southern England. 
So far as the Yorkshire station is concerned a note by Mr. J. 
Backhouse, Junior, may be quoted.* ‘It is growing in the 
utmost profusion among Tvientalis europaea, Vaccinium, 
Luzulas, etc., on the slope of a steep brow covered with scattered 
trees. Suffice it to say that before knowing where the plant was, 
I decided where, 7 it were a native, it ‘ ought to be. This was 
determined partly by the general configuration of the country, 
and partly by the kind of vegetation clothing the district, and 
proved quite correct. Never in Norway, did I see it more 
abundant or finer, that I remember. For a considerable dis- 
tance the hillside is carpeted with it. It is not, however, the 
quantity merely, but as I said before the general circumstances 
and position of the locality, which leave no doubt whatever on 
my mind of its being a genuine native.’ 
But there is another thing, I think, which has been over- 
looked as to its being found. All the rules of the old records 
seem to accept without any doubt the idea that Gerarde’s 
locality of ‘ Dingley Wood, six miles from Preston, in Aunder- 
nesse,’ must be the Lancashire Preston as Gerarde so gives it ; 
but I would suggest it may have been Preston in Holderness, 
in the East Riding? Can any local botanist suggest any 
place within six miles of that Preston now (or formerly in old 
documents) called Dingley Wood ? 
* Phytologist, p. 318, 1861, 
Ig13 Aug. fe 
