104 oN THE FLORA OF THE UPPER TAMAR AND NEIGHBOURING DISTRICTS. 
with the work, it would be removed by his note on a plant which 
he at first thought new and named Lichen involutus, but sub- 
sequently identified with L. marmoreus Hoffm.: “ Sic. observavi 
Lichenum a D—o mihi, pro fascic. suo 2do. describendi causa, 
atu 
The references to Zier in contemporary literature, other than 
those _—_ are _ * He is mentioned in ‘ Hortus Kewensis’ 
ed. 2, 5), as having ictadvecd Rapistrum a@gyptiacum to 
cultivation i in 1787 : _and he was one of the ‘‘ number of naturalists 
tions, throw little 1 light on his histor cee of o “m0 nt (‘‘ Lichen 
tuberculosus *’) he says, ‘* Inveni ah : earn. prope radicem- 
and 
prope pagum inter Kew et Hounsley » ‘[Hlonnsl ow] ” of 
another (‘ Lichen rubiginosus Msc. M.”), “In Germania en circa 
Hanoveram in consortio Ehrharti, qui nomen Byssi ferruginei ei 
M as 
terms of intimate friendship with Ehrhart; also that he had a 
oe and ~— at Hampstead ‘ oR and in See Isle . 
Wight, a well in Germany in w Men ecam 
patsy of his MSS. is not ce ‘en <P seubilen: os int 
his possession at the death of Zier 
,, ON THE FLORA OF THE UPPER TAMAR AND 
NEIGHBOURING DISTRICTS. 
By rue Rev. W. Moytz Rogers, E.L.S. 
(Continued from p. _), 
Epilobium angustifolium L. 1. ae (Hina) lady 
escape. Not otherwise fuedbdiad for Corn hirsu 
Local and uncommon, except in District I. fey singin Bokerad 
—E. hirsuto-parviflorum Schur. Hybrid. II. Roads ne ditch near 
Newacott, several together. — E. montanum L. — E. tetragonum L. 
I. and IT common. Between Bridgerule Church and 
Bridge Moo: Co ‘Between Tinney and N. Tamerton. 
Dux on. 
— EF. obscurum Schreb. — FE. palustre L. Rem arkably common.—— 
E. parvifloro-palustre Hmp. ees sities abundant. II. and 
i ide-ditches. 
My priophyllon 5 spout di, ,. I. “Bude Canal, &e.” (Hind). ? The : 
Hugh Davies, writing to Smith in March, 1793, says “IT am much affected — - 
oh foes snes os Mr. Hudson and Mr. Zier ” (Smith ’s ‘Memoir and Corres- 
_ pondenee,’ i. 434). Unfortunately Smith’s letter, to ‘0 which this is a reply, is not 
‘given. 
oF Ann. Bot. i i. 373. 
