312 
O.  ericetorum  Linton.  (1)  Near  Edmondsham,  Dorset, 
v.c.  9,  June  9,  1908 — Coll.  E.  F.  Linton.  Comm.  S.  H. 
Bickham.  (2)  West  Moor,  Bournemouth,  Dorset,  v.c.  9, 
June  13,  1910 — Ida  M.  Roper.  Right.— E.F.L.  Three 
specimens,  which  have  not  been  pressed  with  sufficient 
care  to  shew  the  distinctive  character  of  the  labellum. 
One  is  certainly  O.  ericetorum :  the  others  may  also  be 
rightly  named,  but  their  foliage  is  erect  or  ascending, 
with  no  tendency  to  be  recurved ;  the  spikes  are  narrow, 
oblong  ;  and  the  labellum  is  more  equally  divided,  and 
apparently  narrower.  These  features  point  towards  our 
restricted  O.  maculata ;  and  I  think  that  they  are  not 
improbably  O.  ericetorum  x  maculata ,  as  their  markings 
and  some  other  indications  seem  to  prove  the  influence 
of  O.  ericetorum.  But  I  cannot  venture  on  a  decided 
opinion _ E.S.M, 
Narcissus  biflorus  Curt.  Pasture,  Churchill,  N. 
Somerset,  v.c.  6,  May  10,  1910.  The  habitat  at  Churchill 
is  especially  interesting.  The  plant  covers  an  area  of 
about  half  an  acre  in  the  middle  of  a  very  large  pasture, 
and  at  the  proper  season  the  mass  of  flowers  is  con¬ 
spicuous  from  a  distance.  The  common  Daffodil  is  also 
abundant  in  the  immediate  neighbourhood,  but  does  not 
occur  in  the  same  field.  Although  not  native  it  has 
certainly  been  established  for  over  50  years _ Ida  M. 
Roper. 
J uncus  bufonius  L.  [var.  fasciculatus  Koch] .  Banks 
of  the  Tweed,  near  Galashiels,  Selkirksh.,  v.c.  79,  Aug. 
1909 — Ida  M.  Hayward.  No;  this  comes  under  the  type. 
The  var.  fasciculatus  Koch  is  a  very  marked  plant, 
although  Buchenau,  in  Engler’s  “  Pflanzenreich,”  IV. 
(1906)  considers  it  unworthy  of  varietal  rank.  He  also 
ignores  var.  ranarius ,  which  has  the  perianth  segments 
equal  to,  or  shorter  than,  the  capsule,  and  has,  I  think, 
very  little  claim  to  distinction _ McT.C.  I  should 
consider  this  to  be  a  luxuriant  form  of  the  type.  Koch’s 
variety  is  described  as  a  dwarf  plant,  two  to  three  inches 
high,  with  the  flowers  in  twos  and  threes.  In  the 
specimen  sent  me  the  flowers  are  solitary _ A.B.J.  This 
does  not  fit  Koch’s  description  of  his  variety,  which  is 
evidently  a  small  stout  plant  (3—4  inches  high)  with 
flowers  in  twos  or  threes  together _ C.E.S.  Koch 
