872 SHORT NOTES. 
tion, it = yeh , now have to be admitted a good species. 
The simple experiment - growing the plant for a year would 
probably decide the pom Will not some of our northern friends 
get living roots of the Tish Leven plant, and set thie question at 
rest once and for all ? 
SHORT NOTES. 
Potamoceton RuFescens Schrad. (1815).-—- Mr. B. D. Jackson 
(p. 835) prints a note from Mr. Druce, suggesting an older name for 
this species, P. aes Balb. (1804), Mr. Druce giving as his authority 
“ Nyman and This name is used by Dr. Ascherson, in his 
admirable ‘ Flora of Brandenburg,’ for sie but Bellardi, in 
the same year, published what is quite as much rujfescens as alpinus 
(neither being the typical form), under the name of P. annulatus. 
It may be worth giving a list of some of the names under which 
this species has appéared :— 
P. alpinus Balbis! (1804). P. fluitans Smith ! (1828). 
P. annulatus Bellardi ! (1804), P. nervergerus Wolf. ! 1880. 
P. obscurum DC. (1805). P. microstachys Wolf. ! 1830 ? 
. purpurescens Seidel rs: P. retusum Smith MS8.! 
P. semtpellucidus Koch. et Ziz.! P. lanceolatus Du Croz! (Herb. 
1814). Nolte, Mus. Brit 
= Se emer, Schrad. (1815). P. serratum Roth. 
tusus Du Croz! (1818). P. lucens io 
but semipellucidus ¢] : 
But when the ‘London Catalogue ’ was issued I did not care to 
introduce a name quite strange to British botanists, instead of one 
used almost universally. Although placed under rufescens, it is not 
here intended to deny that there are differences between such 
plants as P. nervergerus and microstachy hs of Wolfgang, and the 
usual form of rufescens. Indeed, it is a matter for surprise that 
rufescens, considering its great range of variation, has not been 
cae into many ge Species; crispus, with a much less range of 
ge alled species made out _ it, by a well- 
en and two lanes Mr. Dito ce asks (p. 349), “ ‘Why not restore 
- « + Potamogeton compressus, gramineus, &¢. 2”? reply Fan be 
best of reasons: that they are e without meaning, li apply eith 
