27 



brownish, slightly rough. I think that it is rightly named. 

 The situation may account for its remarkable luxuriance. — E. 

 S. Marshall. 



P. Pevsicaria, L. var. elaUim, Gren. and Godr. Waste 

 ground, Alexandra Dock, East Hull, E. Yorks., v.c. 61, Sept., 

 1900. — C. Waterfall. Agrees fairly well with a plant from 

 Rev. A. Ley (Huntsham, Herefordshire) in my herbarium, so> 

 named ; but the leaves are smaller. I do not think that it is 

 really separable as a variety. — E.S.M. 



P. lapathijolnim, L. var. nodosum, Reich. Waste ground,. 

 West Dock Reservation, Hull, E. Yorks., v.c. 61, Sept., 

 1900.— C. Waterfall. I should call this P. I apatJii folium, 

 L. ; it is not P. jnaculatum, Trimen and Dyer, which I believe 

 (though I am not sure about it) to equal P. jwdosnm, Reichb. — 

 E.S.M. 



P. lapathifoliiim, L. var. nodosum, /Keich. Waste ground,. 

 West Dock Reservation, Hull, E. Yorks., v.c. 61, Sept., 1900. 

 — C. Waterfall. This I consider to be a form (or rather a. 

 state) of P. Persicaria, L. It is not P. maculatttm, Trimen and 

 Dyer, which has glandular peduncles. Nor does it agree with 

 descriotion of P. hiforme (? P. nodosum, Pers.) in our handbooks. 

 —E.S.M. 



Rnmex limosiis, Thuill. (1) Near Wroxham Broad, E. 

 Norfolk, Aug. 9, 1900.— C. E. Salmon. (2) R. Ouse, S. of 

 Lewes, E. Sussex, Aug., 1900. — T. Hilton. No personal 

 authority for E. Sussex, v.c. 14, in Top. Bot , and is new to 

 Div. IV. of Arnold's Sussex Flora. 



P. . By lake, Hawkesyard, Staffs., Aug., 1900. 



This Dock is very like congloineratiis, but pedicel joints are very 

 low down, as in sanguineus. — H. P. Reader. This Dock is 

 intermediate, as Mr. Reader states, between conglomeratus and 

 sanguineus. I have compared it with authentic material of P. 

 conglomeratus var. Borreri, Trimen in Journ. Bot. XIV. p. 310, a 

 plant: coming from Burgess Hill, described as intermediate 

 between nemovosus and conglomeratus^ but the whorls in var. 

 Borreri are more leafless and it is much more strongly tri- 

 tuberculate. It therefore does not agree with this variety. 

 The only other British named variety of conghnievatus with 

 which I am acquainted is var. suhsiniplex, Trimen in Journ. 

 Bot. XV. p. 134. x\s may be inferred from the name, this is a 

 subsimple plant and does not agree with Mr. Reader's speci- 

 mens. The following is an extract (in translation) from a 

 paper by Prof C. Haussknecht in Mitteil. der Geog. Gesell- 

 schaft, HI. p. 73, on two forms of a hybrid between R.. 

 conglomeratus and R. sanguineus to which hs has given the name. 



