364 
has  longer  and  more  slender  spikes _ E.S.M.  Possibly  a 
named  form,  but  not,  I  believe,  var.  pseudoparadoxa  Gibs., 
which,  as  I  understand  it,  has  a  slender  stem,  narrow 
leaves,  and  small  narrow  compact  spike,  and  simulates 
true  C.  paradoxa  so  closely  that  it  requires  a  somewhat 
careful  examination  to  separate.  No  such  precaution  is 
necessary  with  Mr.  Bell’s  plant _ C.E.S.  Certainly  not 
Gibson’s  plant,  which  Ascherson  and  Graebner  misunder¬ 
stood  entirely.  I  should  call  it  C.  paniculata  L.,  var. 
subsimplex  Breb.  FI.  Norm _ A.B. 
C.  canescens  L.  (C.  curta  Good.),  var.  fallax  Aschers. 
and  Graebn.  (Ref.  No.  3572.)  (1)  Allt  Coire  Chuirn,  at 
2600  to  2800  feet,  near  Dalwhinnie,  E.  Inverness,  v.c.  96, 
July  14,  1911 — Edward  S.  Marshall.  (2)  Beinn  Heasgar- 
nich,  Mid  Perthsh.,  v.c.  88,  July,  1911—  P.  Ewing.  I  think 
that  Mr.  Druce  has  shown  sufficient  reason  for  retaining 
the  name  C.  canescens  L.  in  place  of  C.  curta  Good.,  as 
most  Continental  botanists  have  done,  though  there  is 
some  little  uncertainty.  This  plant  appears  to  be  var. 
fallax  F.  Kurtz  {ex  Kiikenthal  in  litt.),  in  Aschers.  and 
Graebn.,  “  Synopsis,”  II.,  part  2,  61  [1902],  rather  than 
var.  tenuis  Lang  in  “  Linnaea,”  538  [1851] ;  but  these  two 
varieties  are  very  much  alike.— E.S.M. 
C.  helvola  Blytt  (=  C.  curta  x  Lachenalii).  Root 
from  Lochnagar,  when  the  parents  grew  together.  Hort. 
Edmondsham,  June,  1911 — E.  F.  Linton.  Beautiful  speci- 
mens,  just  intermediate  between  the  parents,  C.  canescens 
L.  and  C.  Lachenalii  Schkuhr  {lagopina  Wahl.).  Culti¬ 
vation  has  increased  the  height,  and  brought  out  the 
characters  extremely  well — E.S.M.  Very  useful  specimens, 
showing  the  plant  well _ A.B. 
C.  gracilis  Curt.,  var.  prolixa  (Fr.).  Bank  of  Boyd, 
Pucklechurch,  W.  Glos.,  v.c.  34,  July  5,  1911.  The  varietal 
name  was  suggested  to  me  by  the  Rev.  H.  J.  Riddelsdell _ 
Ida  M.  Roper.  I  do  not  know  var.  prolixa ;  but  this 
specimen  agrees  very  well  indeed  with  the  description  in 
Ascherson  and  Graebner’s  “  Synopsis,”  Bd.  II.,  Abth.  2, 
p.  92.  They  call  it  C.  gracilis,  f3  strictifolia ;  but  this 
varietal  name  can  hardly  stand,  as  C.  prolixa  Fries, 
Mantissa  III.,  150  [1842] ,  is  older  than  C.  strictifolia  Opiz 
in  Reichb.,  leones  VIII.,  15  [1846]  — E.S.M.  Many  of  the 
