860 
specimens  of  this  species — E.  F.  Linton.  Yes,  on  the 
grounds  of  priority  Hudson’s  name  is  probably  correct,  but 
its  adoption  can  hardly  fail  to  cause  confusion  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  the  name  glabra  has  so  long  been  applied  to 
a  totally  different  tree _ A.B.J. 
U.  stricta  Lindley.  Edmondsham,  Dorset,  v.c.  9,  Aug. 
7,  1911.  Named  by  Dr.  C.  E.  Moss _ E.  F.  Linton.  This 
agrees  in  foliage  with  all  my  specimens  so  named,  but  the 
habit  of  the  tree  should  have  been  stated,  as  this  is  an 
important  character  in  Ulmus _ A.B.J. 
Betula  pubescens  Ehrh.,  var.  (Ref.  No.  3565).  Allt  an 
t’  Sluie,  at  1500  feet,  near  Dalwbinnie,  E.  Inverness,  v.c. 
96,  July  28,  1911.  A  small  tree,  about  twelve  or  fifteen 
feet  high,  with  very  pendulous  branches  ;  leaves  dark  green 
above,  glabrous ;  lateral  lobes  of  the  female  catkin-scales 
spreading.  It  does  not  agree  well  with  any  of  the  varieties 
described  by  Regel  in  De  Candolle’s  “  Prodromus  ”  XVI., 
part  2,  pp.  167 — 8  (1864)  ;  but  the  combined  features  appear 
to  bring  it  nearest  to  bis  e.  rhombifolia.  The  foliage  is 
cuneate  below,  and  often  rather  long-pointed,  with  a  rhom¬ 
boid  outline.  Dr.  C.  E.  Moss,  who  has  seen  this  gathering, 
suggested  that  it  might  be  a  hybrid  of  var.  parvifolia,  with 
B.  alba  L.  ( verrucosa  Ehrh.) ;  but  I  did  not  observe  B.  alba 
within  many  miles  of  the  locality,  and  it  hardly  seems  to 
ascend  above  1000  feet  in  the  Highlands ;  nor,  indeed,  are 
the  characters,  as  a  whole,  favourable  to  such  an  origin. 
Ascberson  and  Graebner  retain  Ehrhart’s  name,  rejecting 
B.  tomentosa  Reitb.  and  Abel.  I  learn  from  Dr.  Moss 
that  both  were  published  as  nomina  nuda  in  1790;  B. 
pubescens  was  described  in  1791  (Ehrhart,  “Beitrage”  VI., 
98),  B.  tomentosa  not  until  1803.  [Later.]  No.  3565.  I 
propose  to  call  these  B.  pubescens ,  var.  sudetica.  They  are 
very  near  Reichenbacb’s  figure  of  B.  carpatica,  sudetica , 
from  which  bis  drawing  of  B.  carpatica  Kit.  appears  to 
differ  only  by  its  larger,  broader,  more  dentate  and  more 
deeply  cut  foliage.  I  have  several  Scottish  gatherings, 
formerly  named  either  carpatica  or  parvifolia  by  Prof.  J. 
Lange,  which  seem  to  match  Reichenbach’s  carpatica 
pretty  closely.  Reicbenbacb’s  figure  of  sudetica  is  quoted 
by  Regel  under  bis  var.  parvifolia ;  but  I  consider  it 
varietally  distinct,  at  least  from  the  Scandinavian  plant 
usually  so  called  ( B .  odorata  Bechst.,  var.  microphylla 
