3 



with the margins of the sepals ciliated ; but some of the examples 

 apear to be truly linarifolium but with decumbent stems." Miss 

 Dawber's specimen is nearer humifusum, though it certainly has 

 the aspect in part of the other. I have seen no specimen of the 

 plant of Petermann so cannot say whether it would come under 

 that.— A. Bennett. I sent eighteen specimens from the same 

 locality, gathered on the same day, to the Club last year, as 

 H, linarifolium, and as the name was not challenged in the 

 Report I assumed it to be correct. Members have an opportunity 

 this year of seeing authentic and beautiful specimens from Dart- 

 moor, sent by Mrs. E. Lomax, and will therefore do wisely to 

 rectify the error on the labels accompanying my specimens. — 

 Frederic H. Ward. 



Lotus corniculaius. The Warren, Folkestone, July, 1887. 

 There seem to be two varieties here. If I am right in thinking 

 so I should be glad to know what they are. — J. D. Gray. Forms 

 only. — A. Bennett. 



Vicia gracilis f luOis. Walton- on-the-Naze, Essex, July, 1889. 

 — H. S. Thompson. Certainly not gracilis. Answers very well 

 to Fries' description of his V, tetrasperma var. tenui/olia Nov. 

 Fl. Suec. ed. i. p. 12. (1814)." Fries Nov. FL ed. 2. p. 231 ! 

 (1828) ; except that Mr. Thompson's plant has the calyx rather 

 hairy, whilst Fries says glabra'' but puts this only as a secondary 

 character. — A. Bennett. 



Ruhus — — } Great Horkesley, Essex, September, 1889. 



I want to know the name of this Rubtis, if it is interesting I can 

 send the Club a supply next season. — J. D. Gray. This seems 

 to me to be R. pubescens — my thyrsoideus, — C. C. Babington. 



R. ramosus, Blox. Polstead, Suffolk, September, 1889. I 

 hope to send a supply of this next season, I discovered the bush 

 too late in the season to secure good specimens. — J. D. Gray. 

 I think that this is R. macrostenion^ F. My account of R. ramosus 

 in notes of 1886 included these two as one plant, as I now think 

 erroneously. I think also that Bloxam did so. — C. C. Babington. 



R. mucronatuSy Blox. Bournemouth, Hants., July, 1889. — 

 J. D. Gray. Mucronatus. — C. C. Babington. 



R. flexuosus^ M. and L. Polstead, Suffolk, September, 1888. 

 — J. D. Gray. Flexuosus. — C. C. Babington. 



R. ? Newboldii. Sergeants Hill, Wiston, Suffolk, 



September, 1888.— J. D. Gray. Not Newbouldii. I rather 



