352 
1911 — F.  H.  Davey.  I  cannot  quite  match  this.  If  it  is 
the  hybrid  aquatica  x  arvensis  {  =  sativa),  it  seems 
rather  nearer  “  rivalis  ”  than  “paludosa,”  which  has  a 
terminal  head  of  flowers — C.E.S.  Too  near  the  usual 
form  of  M.  sativa  for  var.  paludosa  Sole.— E.F.L.  From 
my  recollection  of  the  plant  of  Sole,  seen  some  years  ago, 
this  is  rightly  placed  under  it.  The  plant  exactly  agrees 
with  specimens  on  which  Mr.  J.  G.  Baker  reported  in 
1878,  “  good  for  M.  paludosa  Sole.” — A.B. 
M.  aquatica  x  arvensis ,  [var.  paludosa  (Sole)  forma]. 
Perranarworthal,  W.  Cornwall,  v.c.  1,  Aug.  16,  1911. 
Stem  unbranched,  perfectly  erect,  leaves  rather  more 
elliptical  than  in  var.  paludosa  as  generally  accepted _ 
F.  H.  Davey.  M.  paludosa  Sole  has  by  his  description 
(No.  22,  p.  50)  the  whorls  of  flowers  fitting  so  close 
together  as  to  resemble  a  spike,  terminating  in  a  round 
head  of  flowers.  The  plate  (PL  22)  shows  the  lowest 
whorl  of  flowers  detached  and  all  the  whorls  above 
contiguous.  It  is  clear  that  this  plant  (and  the  other 
from  Chyvogue)  does  not  agree  with  Sole’s  plate  or 
description.  I  call  them  both  M.  sativa  L _ E.F.L.  This 
is,  I  think,  the  old  sativa  L.  (=  aquatica  x  arvensis ), 
rather  more  inclining  to  the  former  than  the  latter,  but 
perhaps  not  extreme  enough  to  be  the  paludosa  of  Sole.” 
-C.E.S. 
M. - .  Hicks  Mill,  Gwennap,  W.  Cornwall,  v.c.  1, 
Aug.  30,  1911.  To  me  a  very  difficult  plant,  for  which  I 
cannot  suggest  a  name.  Apparently  near  M.  rubra ,  but 
certainly  not  that  species,  as  I  understand  it _ F.  H. 
Davey.  The  large  corollas  point  to  M.  rubra ,  while  the 
hair  remaining  on  stem,  leaves  and  calyx  may  evidence 
M.  aquatica.  The  plant  seems  best  explained  by  this 
combination — E.F.L.  A  puzzling  plant.  Foliage  and 
odour  of  M.  aquatica ,  but  pedicels  and  calyx  different. 
Seemingly  no  good  fruit  is  being  produced.  Possibly  a 
hybrid  of  M.  aquatica  and  ?  M.  rubra  (or  ??  spicata) _ - 
C.E.S.  I  agree  with  Mr.  Salmon,  but  not  as  to  spicata. 
— A.B.  A  puzzling  plant ;  the  combined  characters  seem 
strongly  to  suggest  M.  aquatica  x  piperita,  var.  vulgaris 
(Sole)  as  the  right  solution.  I  do  not  think  that  it  is  any 
form  of  M.  aquatica  x  arvensis  {sativa  L.)— E.S.M. 
