380 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
r 
that “the provisional name of T’.. turrifera may be suppressed” ; 
but ee this his heading eo i doubt—* Triglochin 
ca Gil ueh.= 7’. caleitrapa Hook. ? 
he be easy to find eitkee ground for criticism in Prof. 
mice rt’s papers, especially as it is not always easy to ascertain his 
meaning—what relation, i ate does ‘‘ Angianthus ela at 
ree var. grandiflorus, new var. (Composite), M. Koch”’ 
r a 
fusus var. grandiflorus Benth. Fl. Austral. iii. 563 Loe ? The 
next entry in this paper is “ Baeckea crispiflora F. v. M. var. 
lanuiar” In this case the variety is not specified as new, but it 
ppears to be so, as it is ae characterized. “ Hucalyptus 
Lehneen Bailey =. eximia Schau. var. Leichhardtii Bailey ” 
ict. Nat. xxiv. 56) is another exannpis of making a man say what 
by the “somewhat smaller” leaves and 
ret mi seems doubtful whether it deserves even varietal dis- 
tine 
~~ 
THE BRITISH SPECIES OF ARCTIUM. 
By Winuam H. Bessy, F.L.S. 
Botanists will no Besta have observed the discrepancies 
existing between the arrangement of this genus as given in the 
ninth edition of aie pea? s Manual, and that of the last aici 
of the London Catalogue, where A. nemorosum Lej. is meant to 
ae for the plants we have formerly called A. intermedium Lange, 
while the true A. nemorosum is represented by Mr. Bennett’s new 
deer nti ~ Newbouldii 
Some twenty ily ago, when I was working up this genus 
and suliivating’ os of the forms, a considerable number of 
authentic Scien ec of A. intermedium Lange passed through my 
o peant but among them all there was not one single specimen of 
. nemorosum Lej. They consisted of two forms: first, a rather 
Soe e-headed form of A. minus corresponding to var. purpurascens 
