384 
is  the  name  given  to  the  plant  in  Babington’s  “  Manual  ”  ; 
but  it  does  not  agree  at  all  with  Rouy  &  Foucaud’s 
description  of  T.  occitanicum  Jord.,  which  is  glaucous,  and 
appears  to  be  confined  to  the  south  of  France _ E.S.M. 
[Unnamed  Crucifer] .  Waste  heap  N.  of  Welwyn 
Tunnel,  Herts.,  v.c.  20,  Oct.  10,  1912 _ J.  E.  Little.  This 
is  Rapistrum  rugosum  Berg _ S.T.D. 
Helianthemum  canum  x  vulgare.  Great  Ormes  Head, 
Carnarvonsh.,  v.c.  49,  June  28,  1912 _ S.  H.  Bickham.  I 
have  described  this  in  the  “Journal  of  Botany,”  1918,  p.  182, 
as  H.  Chamcecistus  x  marifolium  =  x  H.  Bickhami  (the 
“  forma  prima  ”).  I  feel  no  doubt  as  to  its  hybrid  origin,  the 
characters  of  the  parents  (with  which  it  grew)  being  well 
mixed.  Cistus  canus  L.  appears  to  be  distinct  from  H. 
marifolium  Miller,  the  oldest  name  for  what  we  have  been 
calling  H.  canum  Dunal _ E.S.M. 
Viola  canina  L.,  var.  sabulosa  Reichb.  Gravelly  loam, 
Codicote  High  Heath,  Herts.,  v.c.  20,  Apl.  18,  and  May  22 
1912 — J.  E.  Little.  These  specimens  have  the  “  souche 
pivotante”  of  var.  sabulosa _ E.S.G. 
V.  ‘ canina  L.’,  var.  crassifolia  (Gronv.)  x  stagnina. 
(Ref.  No.  3753).  Woodwalton  Fen,  v.c.  29,  Hunts.,  June  5, 
1912.  Named  as  above  by  Mrs.  Gregory,  on  the  spot.  A 
very  beautiful  violet,  when  growing  ;  it  shewed  clear 
traces  of  the  parents,  among  which  it  occurs,  and  formed 
large  masses  of  flowering-stems,  visible  from  a  considerable 
distance _ E.  S.  Marshall. 
V.lactea  Sm.  x  canina  L.  Chailey  Common,  E.  Sussex, 
v.c.  14,  May  10,  1912 _ R.  S.  Standen.  My  material  is 
rather  poor,  though  I  believe  it  to  be  right.  It  should  be 
written  V.  canina  x  lactea _ E.S.M.  I  think  correct _ 
E.S.G. 
V.  lactea  Sm.,  var.  pumiliformis  Rouy  &  Foucaud. 
Chailey  Common,  E.  Sussex,  v.c.  14,  May  10,  1912.— R.  S. 
Standen.  This  agrees  very  well  with  their  description.— 
E.S.M.  A  note  in  “British  Violets,”  p.  95,  points  out  the 
probability  of  there  being  an  admixture  of  V.  canina ,  var. 
ericetorum  in  these  plants _ E.S.G. 
