286 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
om 
of the notes convey—at any rate to us—no information—e. q. 
“368. Cerastiwm alpin x vulgatum = C. alpinum. L. var. 
pubescens Syme”: “370. C. vulgatum x nigrescens (arcticum) = 
C. Blytiv Baenitz.” Considering the relation n Sagin 
apetala and S. Reuteri, we may well concur wit r. Druce that 
“the recorded tween such e allies requires very 
eful investigation.” “ Stellaria palustris Retz. v as Hr.” 
attac to “first records” by some of our collectors. Here, as 
elsewhere, we notice a preponderance of casuals, and also a 
sprinkling of new combinations in nomenclature; these we pur- 
posely ignore, being convinced that such casual mention of new 
names in a report of a local body is contrary to the spirit if not 
ion. 
with plants representing critical genera, as well as with regard to 
other species, from which as usual we give a few extracts. We 
must, however, once more express an opinion that some of the 
notes are superfluous: e. g. the following :— 
“ Cerastium oe Curtis. Bromsberrow Heath, v.-c. 34, 
b 
branous at their margins and tips; bracts with their upper half 
i .M 
R- 
—H. W. 
Puastey. € specimens sent me are C. semidecandrum; the 
viscid-glandular form.—J. W. Wurrs. Certainly C. semidecan- 
rum ; note bracts.—G. C. Drucr.” 
Tt will be noted that the paragraph begins with the incorrect 
name of the plant, and that it has been thought necessary to 
Salmon “thinks correctly named”; Mr. Marshall iders Reuteri: 
essrs. Bucknall & White call “type”; Mr. Druce thinks “weak” 
and Mr. Bickham “unhealthy” apetala. Surely, again, it was 
ecessary to print the notes by the Rev. A. Ley which run: “I 
