NOTES ON THE FLORA OF THE FRROFS. 179 
In view of the uncertainty which seems to exist as to these 
plants, and of the evident difference between them (at any rate, 
those of which we have been able to see specimens) and our own 
undoubted L. complanatum from Norway, we have thought it worth 
while to go through the specimens at Kew and the British Museum, 
As a result, we feel convinced that L. alpinum and L. complanatum 
are fairly distinct species; and that generally, in a country where 
L. alpinum seems to run towards L. complanatum, the latter species 
euhoapy: there i is a curious linear appearance about the branches of 
L, complanatum, which, though difficult to describe, is usually 
sufficiently distinctive. A series of specimens of L. alpinum will 
e 
places, with almost terete branches, and leaves nearly the 
size, to the large flattened forms of sheltered and heathy localities, 
with the upper leaves much smaller, and the under leaves st 
reduced to the tooth-like form of L. complanatum. In these large 
flattened forms, however, the intra leaves have a more saw-like 
appearance than in L. complana 
Spring evidently relied too an on the leaf characters, and we 
should therefore not accept his locality ‘‘Scotia’’ without further 
proof. Lloyd’s Bramshot plant we have not seen, but, from the 
5 um. Prof. Law 
big barren flat-branched L. alpinum. Mr. Reader’s Gloucestershire 
plant is, from its sessile rows and general habit, we feel con 
only a large form of L. alpinu Mr. Druce has kindly lent us the 
specimens on * his Seoteh records are based, and these are 
evidently L. a 
We Siarenies contend that at present there is no evidence upon 
which to include = omplanatum in the British flora, although, 
from its distributio Ee ¢ still hope that it may he found in some of 
the Scotch aiatiol or such like places 
NOTES ON THE FLORA OF THE FZROES. 
By Miss L. Copnanp anp Miss Caronine Birwey. 
us. Narcan the largest (27 miles in length and some 7 
nN2 
