318 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
34. Gloster W. Ley! f. umbr. Var. NUDICAULIS Rogers. 
35. Monmouth. Ley! . 10. Wight ! (conf.) 
36. Hereford. Ley! ae 
R. MUCRONATOIDES Ley. 
36. Hereford. Ley! (J. Bot. 
_ 1907, 447). 
41. Glam. Riddelsdell! forma. 
43. Radnor! Ley! 
96. Easterness. Marshail! 
R. crnerosus Rogers. 
[3. Devon S. G. B. Savery !] 
37. Worcester. Ley! 
40. Salop. ay |. 
41, Glamorgan. __ Riddelsdell! 
. rma. 
ane, 
42. Bree Ley! j it — ae se mae 
55. Leicester ! 
58. Chester... Ww olley-Dod ! R. Gureern Frider. 
60. Lance. W. Wheldon! [3. Devon S. _G.B. Savery!) 
98. Argyle. Marshall! ~* 6. Som. N. Ley! forma. 
~~ 18. Sussex W. Hilton! 
R. mucronatus Blox. © 16. Kent W. Gilbert! 
8. Wilts §.! Tatum! 27. Norfolk E, Linton! forma 
93, Oxford. .Druds!{oonf) 96 Hereford.” Ley ! (cont.) 
24. Bucks. Benbow! Druce! 41. Glam. ee me 
48. Merioneth. eel 42. Brecon. Ley! for 
53. Line. 8. Ley! . 55. Leicester. teal (cont, 
59. Lane. S. Wheldo [60. Lance. W. Wheldon !] 
60. Lane. W. ange and : 
Wilson ! R. Lerri Rogers. 
61. York 8.E. Wilkinson ! 1. Cornw. W. rete Tre- 
65. York N.W. F. A. Lees! sider t form 
H. §. Thompson! 36. Hereford. Ly! forma. 
94. Banff. Trail! 46. Cardigan. Painter! forma. 
(To be concluded.) 
COMITAL CENSUS NUMBERS. 
By G..Crarmce Druce, M.A., F.L.S. 
I HAVE been — by some of my friends—the Editor of po 
Journal among them—to send a note on the statement made i 
the review (which contains much debatable matter) of my List of 
British Plants in this Journal for 1908, p. 129:—* Another point 
on which we fear Mr. Druce’s List is open to adverse criticism is 
that of distribution. A comparison with the new edition of the 
London Catalogue shows serious i. throughout.” IT let 
