250 
M.  longifolia  Huds.  Barnbarroch,  Wigtownsh.,  v.c. 
74,  Aug.,  1900.  —Coll.  E.  K.  Higgins.  Comm.  D.  M. 
Higgins.  M.  rotundifolia  Huds. — E.F.L.  Surely  this  is 
M.  rotundifolia  Huds.,  and  so,  I  think,  a  new  record  for 
v.c.  74,  Wigtown. — A.B. 
M.  longifolia  Huds.,  var.  Nicholsoniana  (Strail). 
Cwm-y-oy  (near  Llanvihangel  Crucorney),  N.  Monmouthsh., 
v.c.  35,  Aug.  30,  1909.  I  think  this  is  correctly  named, 
but  I  do  not  even  now  understand  the  variety. — A.  Ley. 
This  has  the  long  setaceous  bracts  of  the  variety,  but  the 
leaves  are  not  very  petiolate :  however,  I  think  it  may 
pass. — C.E.S.  This  is  described  in  the  Exchange  Club 
Report  for  1887,  p.  186,  by  the  Abbe  Ch.  A.  Strail,  who 
remarks,  “  This  species  has  certain  relations  wuth  M. 
Eisensteiniana  Opiz  ”  (Naturalientausch,  No.  131,  p.  301). 
This  latter  is  called  by  Durand  in  “  Recherches  sur  les 
Menthes  de  la  flore  liegeoise  ”  (1876),  p.  8,  “  M.  sylvestris 
L.,  var.  glabrata .”  Deseglise  in  his  “  Menthrn  Opizianae  ” 
in  Ann.  Soc.  Bot.  Lyon,  1879-80,  does  not  give  any  special 
station  for  Opiz’s  plant. — A.B. 
M.  aquatica  L.,  var.  citrata  (Ehrh.).  Cult.  Ledbury, 
Aug.  15,  1909,  from  a  root  sent  by  Mr.  J.  W.  White  from 
Priddy  Nine  Barrows,  on  Mendip,  N.  Somerset  (see  Jl. 
Bot.  1906,  p.  32). — S.  H.  Bickham.  Surely  this  cannot  be 
considered  as  the  plant  of  Ehrhart !  The  specimen  is  not 
glabrous,  either  in  stem,  leaves  or  calyx,  and  the  leaves 
are  much  too  short-petioled  for  citrata.  I  should  have 
named  it  M.  piperita  Huds.,  to  which  it  accords  in  all  its 
characters.  M.  citrata  is  described  by  Strail,  Deseglise, 
Malinvaud  and  others,  as  absolutely  glabrous.  Besides 
the  inflorescence  of  citrata  is  hirsuta  (aquatica) -like  ;  this 
is  not  so. — A.B.  Assuming  that  this  is  the  plant  dis¬ 
cussed  in  the  Jl.  Bot.  1906,  p.  32,  I  think  the  shape  of  the 
spike  is  of  more  importance  than  the  presence  or  absence 
of  hairy  clothing.  M.  citrata  (Ehrh.)  is  identified  by 
Baker,  Syme  and  others,  with  M.  odorata  Sole.  M.  Malin¬ 
vaud,  in  a  well-reasoned  article  (Annotations  au  4e  fasc. 
des  Menthae  exs.  pr.  Gall. ;  extrait  du  Bull.  Soc.  Bot. 
Frang.  t.  xxviii.)  on  his  No.  38,  M.  citrata  Ehrh.,  agrees 
that  Sole’s  M.  odorata  is  probably  (verisimiliter)  this 
species.  Now  Sole’s  figure  of  M.  odorata  has  the  rounded 
head  of  M.  aquatica ,  with  a  pair  of  axillary  clusters 
