130 LAMIUM MOLLE. 
I regret I did not secure specimens, but will hope to do so. It is 
remarkably floriferous, and more branched than the type, with the 
flowers of a brighter colour, the whole plant stronger-looking, 
almost as sturdy as C. crispus. I do not know C. Forsteri. Can this 
be it? At Portlean, a new fishing quay, I took to the cliffs for 
Culdaff. The coast here is a low, prettily diversified, rocky one. 
Ligusticum occurs plentifully near Culdaff. Inside the estuary, 
Stachys arvensis, Lycopsis, and Senecio flosculosus. The umbellifer 
occurs on both sides of the estuary. I spent the rest of the day 
botanizing about this pretty fishing village, on the sandhills and 
about the coast, but got nothing of note, except signally wretched 
quarters at night. 
(To be continued.) 
LAMIUM MOLLE Ar. 
By James Barren, F.L.§. 
Tuts name is reduced by Mr. Jackson in his Index to a synonym 
of L. purpureum. Steudel more correctly assigns it also to L 
parietarigfolium Benth., in this following Bentham, who (Labiate, 
p. 512) first placed molle under purpureum as a variety, but later 
(!.c. p. 739) established his parietariefolium and placed under it 
‘L. molle Hortul. et Ait. Hort. Kew. ii. 297 ex parte ?”’ As pointed, 
out by Bentham, two species are on the same sheet in the Banksian 
Herbarium which is written up by Solander as L. molle, and this is 
the source of the confusion. 
The description in the Hortus Kewensis* runs thus :— Has 
“LL, foliis petiolatis subdentatis: inferioribus cordatis ; superiori- 
us ovatis, 
Lamium parietarie facie. Mor. [Morison] bles. 278. 
Pellitory-leaved Archangel. 
Nat. 
Cult. 1683 by Mr. James Sutherland. Sutherl. hort.edin.181.n.1. 
fl. April and May. , 
Oss. Facile dignoscitur foliis subintegerrimis, nec serratis, nec 
crenatis. Flores albi.” 
This description is amply sufficient to show which of the two 
plants on the Banksian sheet is intended, for the specimens of 
* Solander’s original description is not among his MSS. 
