ee THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
certainly appear to be blunter and possibly narrower than rp, of 
pace ; but a very great deal of variation ee oce 
gain, the lower sterile or empty bracts of L. vulgare a ‘often 
most noticeable, and petra of tial species ; om examples 
occur of both species both with and without empty bract 
In Boissier’s description of L. humile (De Candolle, bioe: Sys. 
Nat. _ 644) he brings to light characters unnoticed previously 
iz. the = ines of the calyx- tube—“ ima basi piloso”’ in ~ rh 
aiet ad costas plus minusve piloso” in L. vulgare. ais cts 
broadly Eo tae: and flowers slightly er are characters ale 
given to dist — the former from the lat’ 
he di n hairiness of the as is a eently a 
fairly reliable Sistinetive character, and in numbers of specimens 
more glabrous calyx of L. iii was very noticeable. 
vdeo. Noueents tells me that in Sweden it _ a reliable feature 
of Bi vulgare to have two to three of the calyx-ribs glabrous, whilst 
in L. humile all five are hairy. Willectnataly, this rule does not 
invariably hold good in Britain, for I have seen undoubted examples 
of the latter plant from Ireland (where L. vulgare is unrecorded, an 
S. 
s English Botany (ed. iii. 1867, is) it is mentioned 
that in L. humile the innermost bracteole is ‘ half as rit as’’ the 
intermediate one, whilst in L. vulgare it is twice as lot s the 
innermost bracteole (or bract) is always longer than the se eon 
(or middle) in both = I suspect a printer’s error here, and 
suggest that the portion in inverted commas of the diagnosis re- 
ferred to acai read ‘ half as long again as.” Even then it cannot 
rank as a specific character, as it Saag that the proportion between 
inner and middle bract is the same in both species—the former half 
as long again as the latter (avy ine slightly a little less or more). 
I have never seen, in either species, the inner bract twice as long. 
Babington (Man. Brit. Bot. 1881, 293) placed some relian 
bi the outer bract being keeled (in hwmile) or sagas oe Eiger r) 
the back, but these are — aa ee 
conclusive in the examination of fr 
er (Stud. Fl. Brit. Is. 1884, 250) gv a no eer distinguishing 
foaiaees Be the two, but evidently fo 
Gillet and Magne e (Nouy. Fi. Frangaise, 1898, 406) pointed out 
that the inner bract is shorter i in proportion to the ‘outer in L. humile 
than in vulgare, and this statement I can confirm from the exami- 
nation of many plants ; in Awmile the inner bract is usually a good 
deal less than twice the len = of the outer, whilst in vulgare it is 
often twice the length, or even more 
- Lloyd (Fi. es VOuest = Fr. 1 1898, ig contributed an observa- 
tion upon the petals; in humile they are described as being “ obtus, 
oblongs-en-coin ”’ ; fe ae arrondis au sommet, entiers ou 
; in the latter species he says the oe rea is three 
times longer than the exterior, a proportion I have never observed 
in any European examples. At Bosham and dliewbure: I have noticed 
