THE BOTANY OF WORCESTERSHIRE 359 
under Sparganium minimum, in which they have quite misunder- 
stood my contention about S. natans, nor have they correctly 
stated the facts. The same unacquaintance with recent nomen- 
clatorial work is responsible for such a statement as may be found 
under (p. 146) Sedum Telephiwm “var. purpureum . . - not given 
in Lond. Cat. 10th Ed.” It i 
e 
S. purpureum Tausch or Linn. is mentioned in Index Kewensis.” 
Varieties are not included: in that work, so that var. purpurewm 
trasting it with C. rubrum, to which Botrys bears no resemblance, 
and saying, “the extreme succulence of the flowers, and subse- 
e authors quote Mr. Mathews for the identification with 
Lactuca saligna of Merrett’s “ Lactuca sylvestris laciniata minima” 
i Clinch Lene 
indeed it were not dwarf L. muralis, which still occurs in the vicinity. 
ut these are “flies inamber.” British botanists are indebted 
to the authors for the production of a scholarly, cleanly printed, 
well-compiled account of the flora of an inland county w ich has 
curious natural features and some interesting species. They have 
fungi—the very large number is no doubt largely due to the 
portion of the work ; and have added materially to our knowledge 
of botanical topography. © ch anon Davek. 
