R. . Lindfield, v.c. 16, E. Sussex, July 13, 1901. 



— R. S. Standen. L.ooks like R. coesius x ntsticanus. — W.M.R. 



Alchemilla vulgaris va.r. Jilicaulis (Bus.). (1) Pasture land, 

 near Cottin<,^ham, v.c. 31, E. Yorks., May, 1901.— C. Waterfall. 

 (2) Bardon, v.c. 55, Leicester, Sept. 8, 1901. —W. Bell. 

 (1) Yes, typical filicaulis. — E. F. Linton. (2) Yes, about as 

 hirsute an example as I have seen. This is probably our 

 commonest sub-species. — E.F.L. 



Alchemilla . Site of old garden, Birstall, v.c. 55, 



Leicester, July, 1901. — ^W. Bell. This does not correspond 

 exactly with any of our three British sub-species. If it were 

 found wild I should like to ask M. Buser's opinion on it.— 

 E.F.L. A single specimen sent for naming. — A.H.W.-D. 



Rosa dtimetonmi, Thuill. ? Burvvardsley, v.c. 58, Cheshire, 

 July 15, 1900.— A. H. Wolley-Dod. So named by M. Crepin 

 with some doubt, after having first suggested it to be a variety 

 connecting R. tomentella with R. canina. The strong tendency 

 of the sepals to ascend after the fall of the petals, would, 1 

 think, lead one to suppose that it should come under R. glaiica, 

 but Crepin dismisses this character (as he has done in several 

 other roses I have sent him from time to time), with the 

 remark, " sepales redressees accidentellement." — A.H.W.-D. 



R. arvensis, Huds. form or var ? Open place in wood, 

 Sprotboro, v.c. [63 ?J, Yorks, July 15 and 20, 1901.— C. H. 

 Waddell. Petals pure white, leaflets different from arvensis. 

 — C.H.W. I should say quite a frequent woodland form of 

 R. arvensis. Apparently not var. bibracteata, ot which Crepin 

 says, "On a distingue, sous le nom de bibracteata, Bart, une 

 variete a tiges plus robustes qu' a I'ordinaire, et a inflorescence 

 plus ou m,oins multiflore." — W.M.R. 



Sedum dasyphyllimi, Linn. On walls and sandstone 

 rocks, Wribbenhall, near Kidderminster, v.c. 37, Worcester, 

 June 27, 1901. — E. Cleminshaw. 



5. mpestre, Linn, a majtcs, Syme. Southrepps, v.c. 27, 

 E. Norfolk, June 29, 1901.— H. D. Geldart. This has taken 

 possession of a tract of land some miles square in North-East 

 Norfolk, but it very rarely flowers, and when it does so, 

 is much injured by insects, which bite through the flower 

 stem just before the flowers expand. It is not of recent 

 introduction, for I have a specimen dated 1838.— H.D.G. I 

 think this is correct. These plants want to be seen alive to 

 study them. — A. Bennett. 



