138 
plant  sent  is  anything  but  a  robust  form  of  denticulata. — 
F.H.D.  Yes,  not  lappacea. — E.F.L. 
Melilotus  indica,  All.  (=  M.  parvifloi'a ,  Desf.).  In 
great  plenty  throughout  the  summer  of  1907,  on  the  sites 
of  old  poultry  runs,  on  the  sandhills  of  the  North  Drive, 
St.  Anne’s-on-the-Sea,  v.c.  60,  Aug.  31,  1907.  Its  usual 
habitat  was  under  bushes  of  Sinapis  nigra ,  species  of 
Amsinckia,  Secale  cereale,  etc. — Charles  Bailey. 
Trifolium  arvense,  Linn.,  var.  prostratum,  Lange. 
Shingly  beach,  Walmer,  E.  Kent,  v.c.  15,  July  16,  1907. — 
F.  L.  Foord-Kelcey.  Surely  only  arvense. — F.H.D.  Seems 
to  be  (according  to  Corbiere’s  FI.  Normandie)  T.  arvense , 
L.,  var.  agrestinum,  Jord.  (=  var.  littorale,  Breb.  non 
Jord.).  The  var.  pro  stratum,  Lange,  is  given  (in  FI.  Kent) 
as  a  synonym  of  var.  perpusillum,  DC.,  which  equals 
(according  to  Corbiere)  var.  littorale,  Jord.  non  Breb. — 
C.E.S.  I  do  not  know  var.  prostratum,  Lange;  but  var. 
perpusillum  DC.,  given  in  the  London  Catalogue  as  a 
synonym,  is  described  as  having  globose  heads,  which  is 
not  the  case  with  the  Walmer  plant. — E.F.L.  A  prostrate 
maritime  state,  not  worth  distinguishing.  I  think  that 
Lange’s  plant  should  have  small,  roundish  heads;  these 
are  typical. — E.S.M. 
T.  procumbens,  Linn.  Apps  Court,  Surrey,  v.c.  17, 
July  24,  1907.  My  excuse  for  sending  so  common  a  plant 
is  that  these  specimens  struck  me  as  peculiar  looking  on 
account  of  their  spreading  hispidity.  Most  of  those  in 
the  same  neighbourhood  had  it  adpressed.  The  character 
is  of  itself  of  little  value  in  my  opinion.-A.  H.  Wolley-Dod. 
T.  procumbens,  Linn.,  var.  majus,  Koch.  Clandon 
Downs,  Surrey,  v.c.  17,  July  18,  1907.  Gathered  with 
Major  A.  H.  Wolley-Dod.  Not  typical  majus,  which 
should  have  shorter  peduncles,  but  best  under  that  by  its 
large  heads,  etc. — C.  E.  Salmon.  Also  sent  by  Major 
Wolley-Dod,  who  remarks, — “By  the  size  of  its  leaflets 
and  flower-heads,  as  well  as  by  its  suberect  habit, 
this  should  go  to  var.  majus,  but  that  is  said  to 
have  shorter  peduncles.  Var.  minus  is  a  much  smaller 
plant  in  all  respects,  but  no  hard  and  fast  line  can  be 
drawn  between  them.” — Type.  Var.  majus  (not  always 
