4 



Poly gala vulgaris^ L., b. grandijlora^ Bab. Grassy banks of 

 stream, Glendun, Co. Antrim, 5th July, 1894. — H. W. Lett. 

 Certainly not the grandijlora of Babington, which has quite a 

 shrubby growth, the leaves are very thick, and the lower leaves 

 much like those of the box ; the wing sepals are also very much 

 more apiculate. Prof. A. W. Bennett (Journal of Botany, 1877, 

 p. 171) refers to this as not being the v. grandijlora, DC, this 

 being so I do not see how the plant can retain Babington's 

 name ; it is decidedly against the laws of nomenclature to have 

 two vars. grandijlora under one species, whatever Dr. Candoll's 

 plant may have been. If the name is altered I would suggest 

 V. Bahingtonii for it. Mr. Lett's specimens are nothing like so 

 near grandijlora as I have gathered on the Dover cliffs in Kent. — 

 A. B. 



Silene noctiflora^ L. Clover field, Crossgar, Co. Down, 23rd 

 July, 1894 Seems to have come with the seed. — C. H. Waddell. 

 Is S. dichotoma, L. — W. R L. 



Cerastium arvense, L., v. Andrewsii, Syme. Poulsailagh, near 

 Black Head, Co. Clare, 19th May, 1892. I hardly think this 

 plant is worthy of being placed as a variety even of C. arvense; 

 it certainly is not so hairy as the type found in the East of Ire- 

 land, and Mr More has justly remarked that this variety is to 

 C. arvense what Helianthemum vineale is to H. marijolium. — ^H. C. 

 Levinge. Dr. Boswell Syme's name must be given up; he over- 

 looked that Babington (Man. Brit. Bot., Ed. 2, p. 56, 1 847) named 

 exactly the same plant B. strictum, but Koch, Syn. Fl. Germ, et 

 Helv., Ed. 2, p. 836, 1843, has ?i B. stridum which may not be 

 the same. But the plant seems substantially the same as the 

 w. glahrescens, Mert. and Koch, Dent. Fl. 3, 348 (iSji), except 

 perhaps that Andrews' plant had usually one flowered peduncles; 

 v. glahellum, Le Debour, Y\. Ross, i, must be somewhat near 

 this. Curiously tufted forms of this species may be found near 

 the sea-coast (Norfolk and Suffolk !), and Mr. Levinge's speci- 

 mens are not good representatives in my idea of Syme's plant. — 

 A. B. 



