353 
M .  aquatica  x  longifolia.  (1)  Chyvogue,  Perranar- 
worthal,  W.  Cornwall,  v.c.  1,  Sept.  4,  1911.  Abundant 
and  luxuriant  in  a  damp  meadow.  Foliage  and  inflores¬ 
cence  mostly  tending  towards  longifolia,  which,  however, 
does  not  occur  in  the  district.  (2)  Prah  Sands,  near 
Marazion,  W.  Cornwall,  v.c.  1,  Sept.  16,  1911.  In  foliage 
and  inflorescence  much  nearer  aquatica  than  the 
Perranarworthal  specimens. — F.  H.  Davey.  The  following 
notes  refer  to  the  Chyvogue  specimens.  I  agree.— E.F.L. 
This  seems  to  me  to  be  correctly  named,  and  to  agree 
with  the  form  M.  grandifolia  Malvd.,  Rouy  &  Foucaud, 
FI.  de  France,  XI,  p.  376.— C.B.  Two  sheets  were  sent 
me  of  this.  Both,  I  think,  are  what  would  have  been 
named  “  pubescens  ”  in  the  past ;  the  leaves  show  strong 
evidences  of  aquatica,  but  are  more  shortly  stalked  and 
more  felted  beneath ;  the  inflorescence  is  more  spicate. 
Is  the  hybrid  aquatica  x  rotundifolia  known  for  Britain  ? 
— C.B.S.  (a)  There  is  excellent  evidence  of  M.  longifolia 
in  the  inflorescence ;  but  the  foliage  is  very  much  nearer 
to  M.  aquatica.  Perhaps  it  may  be  a  secondary  hybrid, 
or  mongrel,  viz.  M.  aquatica  x  (< aquatica  x  longifolia). 
(b)  A  second  sheet,  with  sessile,  bright  green  foliage,  is 
considerably  nearer  to  M.  longifolia ;  and  I  believe  that 
this  is  the  simple  hybrid,  which,  in  the  former  case,  has 
been  crossed  again  with  the  aquatica  parent.— E.S.M. 
M.  sylvestri-aquatica  Doll  Rheinische  Flora,  p.  355  (1843). 
M.  nepetoides  Lejeune  Revue  FI.  Spa.  p.  116  (1824),  “  862. 
M.  nepetoides.  N—  spicis  oblongis,  staminibus  corollae 
aequalibus;  foliis  subcordato-ovatis,  acutis,  inaequaliter 
acute  serratis,  hirsutis ;  caule  piloso.  Obs.  Cette 
menthe  a  de  grands  rapports  avec  le  M.  nemorosa  Willd. ; 
mais  elle  s’en  distingue  par  son  port  plus  eleve,  par  ses 
feuilles  petiolees,  verdatres,  et  par  la  forme  de  ses  dents.” 
As  with  most  hybrids,  the  plants  placed  under  M.pubescens 
by  British  botanists  vary  much,  the  Norfolk  specimens 
being  mostly  much  smaller  in  all  parts,  the  Cornish  much 
larger  (owing  to  climatal  influence?).  The  10th  ed.  of 
the  London  Catalogue  still  keeps  up  the  absolutely 
meaningless  name  of  M.  pubescens  Willd.;  Deseglise, 
Malinvaud  and  Strail  all  state  that  the  name  has  no 
meaning,  and  there  is  not  a  specimen  so  named  by 
Willdenow  either  at  Berlin  or  in  his  herbarium  !  Ascher- 
son  &  Graebner  (FI.  nordostdeutschen  Flachlandes,  1898-9) 
