493 ADDITIONAli NOTES, ETC. 



Xd. Lysimachia punctata, vol. ii. p. 299. 



It is somewhat ciuious that this species should have 

 since been found in the same province, though not in the 

 same spot, in wliich it had been formerly (as would at 

 present seem erroneously) reported to occur. It was in- 

 cluded in Winch's Flora of Northumberland and Durham, 

 as having been found " on the banks of the Skerne, in 

 abundance," first by Mr. Backhouse, and then by Mr. 

 Ward twenty years later. But in an after-printed Appen- 

 dix to the same Flora, Mr. Winch said that he had ex- 

 amined six of the specimens collected by Mr. Ward, and 

 found them to be all L. vulgaris. Accordingly, L. punc- 

 tata was again dismissed from the British Flora, fifth 

 edition, into the former edition of which it had been ad- 

 mitted. I also had been favoured with one of Mr. Ward's 

 specimens, which afterwards I found to be L. vulgaris, 

 though fii'st received as L. punctata in my youthful bota- 

 nical days. Last year, however, Mr. Storey sent me a 

 specimen labelled " Lysimachia vulgaris. — Naturalized in 

 Mr. Sewell's gi'ounds, Heaton Dene near Newcastle." 

 This specimen is clearly L. punctata ! On mentioning 

 the fact to Mr. Storey by letter, he informs me that, " The 

 plant under consideration is abundant in the locality re- 

 ferred to, and appears to be i^erfectly natui-alized, growing 

 kixuriantly from year to year. It is, however, quite pos- 

 sible that L. vulgaris may be equally j)lentiful there." 

 The latter suggestion may be the clue to explain the sort 

 of paradox or cross-errors of name ; both species possibly 

 occui'ring intermingled in each localit3\ L. punctata may 

 be distinguished by the glandular fringe to the segments 

 of the corolla, by its dotted leaves, and by not having a 

 coloured border to the segments of the calyx such as is 

 seen in L. vulgaris. It is otherwise so similar to the 



