ADDITIONAL NOTES, ETC. 497 



913. Chenopodium miorale, vol. ii. p. 317. 



The province of Nortli Wales should be enclosed [7] as 

 too uncertain for reliance at present, though not impro- 

 bable. I have seen specimens in or from the counties of 

 Hants, Kent, Surrey, and Gloucester only. 



913. Chenopodium hyhridum, vol. ii. p. 318. 



This is confirmed to the province of the Peninsula, by 

 the name being marked in a list of plants observed in the 

 neighbourhood of Dunster in West Somerset, by the Rev. 

 W. H. Coleman. The alleged locality for it in the neigh- 

 bourhood of Bath, mentioned on page 318 of volume 

 second, has been unproductive of it for several years past, 

 as I learn from Mr. Withers. 



914. Clienopodmm album, vol. ii. p. 318. 



Probably Orkney may be substituted for Sutherland in 

 indicating the north limit. Mr. S}Tne saw the plant at 

 Swanbister, but only as a garden weed, so that it may 

 have been recently introduced to Orkney. 



915. Chenopodium ficifolium, vol. ii. p. 319. 



The county of Hants must be excluded from the south 

 limit, having hitherto rested on the authority of Mr. 

 Notcutt's list of plants near Fareham, in which this was 

 included by mistake, according to the report of Dr. Brom- 

 field in Phytologist, iii. 750. Mr. Varenne deems this 

 plant not so rare as would appear by the records ; it being 

 with difficulty distinguished from C. album while in flower 

 after the lower fig-form leaves have been lost. 



916. Chenopodium glaucum, vol. ii. p. 320. 



The county of Sussex is to be excluded from the south 

 limit, as I am informed by Mr. Borrer, that the Rev. G. 

 E. Smith had inadvertently marked the name of tliis 

 species in his list of Sussex plants. Mr. Syme having 

 found it in Fifeshii'e, that province (15) may be added to 



VOL. III. 3 s 



