10 : THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
I have seen no specimens from these islands that could be so named 
with certainty ; an example collected by Mr. and Mrs. A. Bennett 
at may we ee k, Sussex, 1901, was auiritiived by Dr. Neuman, 
r. hallandica vel ad var. hallandicam vergens,”” but it has not 
ek call get tire, &e., ‘of that variety, and is, I believe, only 
a small coe shoot of what was once a = <a t of = ulg 
In 1 athered a plant at Bos agreeing well with 
iirdin - regards length and fan of leaf, but in tie details 
it diffe mewhat from that; it will be safer, therefore, for the 
present, to cai the variety hallandica from our British lists, as 
no specimens seem exactly to correspond with Dr. Neuman’s very 
careful oe 
. G. Rouy, in a paper upon the genus Statice published in 
the Rev. Bot. 5 ie 1903, 167 e¢ seq., arranged the plants ae 
Tisaeicinks as follows (his synonymy condensed is added 
brackets) : 
Statice Limonium L. Fi. Suec. 99. (Sensu amplo.) 
a typica Rouy. (S. Saieontlion Ui from Linnzus’s localities.) 
B pseudo-Limonium Rouy. (S. pseudo- ee Reichb.) 
y Behen Boiss. (S. Behen Drej. ; S, scanica Fries. 
8 Hallandica Rouy. (S. scanica Fr. var. "Halland Neum.) 
Subspecies 1. 8. sanusrensis Fries. (S. realis Fr.) 
var. rariflora Drej. (8. bahusiensis var. dan 
Subspecies 2. §. aneustiroria Tausch. (9. Gmeli ni Koch (non 
“); & on y macroclada Bidens ® (pro parte) ; 
S. Timbali ) 
f. serotina Beiehb, (S. Limonium y ieee Boiss. 
pro par 
spun Rouy. (8. Drepanensis ‘Tineo.) 
Subspecies 3. S. acerecata Rouy. (S. Limonium y macroclada 
oiss. (pro parte).) 
ee 4, §. nemorirtora Rouy. 
I am noi convinced that all the forms and varieties mentioned 
in the itore list can be successfully separated in the field with any 
certainty—unless indeed one is satisfied to classify individuals— 
ioe ae as M. Rouy’s descriptions (which need not be repro 
duced here) a a considerably upon the variable characters of 
leaf, panicle, 
Of the ceva named in om my’ S paper and not previously 
alluded to, I note the followin: 
S. pseupo-Limonium Reiche mbach’s description of this (Fl. 
Germ. aude 1830, 191) lacks any detail to satisfactorily separate 
it from th mal S. Limonium L. of his day; in Herb. Kew and 
elsewhere 1 Hinge seen type-specimens (Fl. Germ. Exsice. No. 963), 
and these show that it cannot well be distinguished, even asa variety, 
S. ancustivonia Tausch. Described in Syll. Ratisb. ii. 1828, 
254. Named specimens in Kew, Herb. Boissier, Brit. Mus., &e. 
sae iad the conclusion that this plant is the variety macroclada of 
er, possessing rather smaller and narrower leaves, and more 
tance and lax spikes, than usual. I doubt if it would be advisable 
