NOTES ON LIMONIUM 57 
that the petals of humile are always emarginate, whilst those of vul- 
gare are either emarginate or entire 
ea Abbé Coste’s Flore de la Fe ‘ance (1904, 160) ‘a capital and 
concise description is given of both L. humile and L. vulgare, but 
-Lloy ade (. ¢.) bract proportions are mentioned, which I believe to 
ect, His description, ‘‘ rameaux longuement nus A la 
base,” is happily applied to L. vulgare, as opposed to the ‘‘rameaux 
garnis d’ épillets presque dés la base’’ of L. humile, 
uy’ 
as ranean of our plants have bee 
already given (p. 10), and in his paper no fresh points of distinction 
ed between the two species under discussion ' 
from that country, as well as examples of the normal-sized plant 
10 or 12 in, en ae 2 am not roel as to Rouy’ s remark con- 
coming, ~ humile in Fran 
e paper sicoiay: “tobe to (Rev. Bot. Syst. 1904, bd) 
Reuy hdl se @ new subspecies, S. remotiflora, from Heéra 
(France) and Phalére (Greece). I have not seen Sieupeiiecae o or 
figures of this, but from the description given judge it-to be a large 
state of L. Arend. Abbé Coste A ¢.) © dey ks ic S. sett bs Rouy as 
a synonym of L. humile, and I a llow this arrange- 
ment until I have seen actual ‘igeettigls te latter plant has, 
Greece 
S now consider the varieties or forms of L. humile which 
rved. 
have esti obse 
K. Frie < (Summ. Veg twee i, 1846, nya ot Sart two 
erect. The latter variety Fries identified with the ‘“‘yariflora” of 
Drejer (t."e. whi ch Drejer ee admitted, some years earlier, 
Drejer and Dr. L. M. Neuman (Bot. Not. 1888, 50); and one is 
i i racter 
of leaf, e, &e., exist only on paper, and merge hopelessly one 
i further, i as I mentioned previously, 
collected fs pind nts under the name ‘ eh "a small state of 
Leh ), and a hybrid 
904, 361). 8 
‘at hn te dal esting: n Bot. Not. 1897, 207, throw 
much light upon this palette through the kindness of the 
JouRNAL OF Botany. —Vor, 43. [Frs. 1905.] ee 
+ 
