432 
E.  prcccox  DC.  (Ref.  No.  51).  Sandpit  at  Lower 
Stondon,  Beds.,  v.c.  30,  April  18,  1912.  Intermixed  with 
other  forms. — J.  E.  Little.  Yes,  E.  prcecox  DC.  (=  E. 
brachycarpa  Jord. !).  I  consider  this  a  distinct  species 
from  E.  vulgaris  DC.— E.S.M.  These  are  good  E.  brachy¬ 
carjpa  Jord.,  I  should  say. — J.A.W. 
E.  prcecox  DC.  Hitchin,  Herts.,  v.c.  20,  April  1912. 
Sorted  out  from  a  mixture  of  forms.  What  puzzles  me 
about  Mr.  Marshall’s  reference  here  is  that  there  is  much 
greater  tendency  to  pointing  at  both  ends  than  in  what  I 
take  to  be  typical  E.  prcecox.  This  form  with  rather 
pointed  boat-shaped  ends  in  about  proportion  3mm.  x 
l-5mm.  is  very  abundant.  The  forms  more  in  proportion 
3x2  with  rounded  ends  are  less  abundant,  and  can  only 
be  obtained  by  selection.— J.  E.  Little.  I  should  refer  the 
bulk  of  these  to  E.  prcecox  DC.  (=  E.  brachycarjpa  Jord.). 
A  few  are  not  quite  characteristic. — E.S.M.  So  I  think. — 
J.A.W. 
E.  spathulce folia  Jord.?  (Ref.  No.  55a).  St.  Ippolyts, 
Herts.,  v.c.  20,  April  4,  1913.  Leaves  glabrescent,  except 
for  long  simple  scattered  hairs  on  margin,  bright  green, 
long  petioled.  Hairs  mostly  simple,  long,  up  to  0-5mm, 
often  widely  scattered.  A  few  bifid  hairs.  Stem  with  few 
or  no  hairs.  Leaf  narrowed  at  base  into  relatively  long 
petiole.  Silicles  5 — 6mm.  long  x  1*5 — 2‘5mm.  broad. 
Calyx  2mm.  long.  Corolla  4mm.  long. — J.  E.  Little. 
Forked  hairs  relatively  few  as  compared  'with  simple  ones. 
I  think  no  doubt  under  stirps  E.  glabrcsccns.  Probably 
either  E.  spathulce  folia  Jord.  or  E.  vivaricola  Jord. 
E.  glabrescens  Jord.  is  of  course  a  group  of  forms  and  can 
only  be  used  in  an  aggregate  sense. — J.A.W.  Rouy  & 
Foucaud  describe  the  leaves  as  being  dark  green,  the 
sepals  as  reddish,  and  the  pods  as  5mm.  broad  by  3  long; 
my  two  specimens  do  not  agree  well  with  this. — E.S.M. 
Lepidiuni  [virginicum  L.] .  Disused  chicken  run,  St. 
Helens,  Hastings,  July,  1913. — A.  G.  Gregor.  No;  this  is 
L.  neglectum  Thell.,  without  much  doubt. — C.E.S. 
Iberis  amara  L.,  var.  ruficaulis  Lej.  et  Court.  Rough 
ground  near  Church  Hill,  Royston  Heath,  Herts.,  v.c.  20, 
June  26,  1913.  Intermixed  with  type.  It  flowers  some- 
