442 
scrappy  to  allow  of  a  definite  opinion;  it  may  be  a  small 
form  of  P.  procumbens  x  reptans.  I  know  nothing  of 
P.  mixta  Reichb. — E.S.M.  Yes,  P.  mixta  Nolte  ex  Reich  - 
enbach  Exsicc.  No.  1742  (no  description)  =  P.  mixta  Nolte 
ex  Koch  Syn.  ed.  2,  p.  239.  This  plant  is  usually  regarded 
as  a  hybrid  of  P.  procumbens  and  P.  reptans  ;  but  I  am 
not  convinced  of  the  correctness  of  the  hypothesis.  The 
British  distribution  (so  far  as  my  own  limited  knowledge 
of  it  goes)  of  the  three  forms  seems  to  be  against  the 
view  that  it  is  a  hybrid.  Personally,  I  have  never  found 
P.  mixta  in  localities  on  the  northern  and  western  hills 
where  P.  procumbens  and  P.  reptans  grow.  I  have  found 
it  in  southern  and  eastern  England,  usually  in  localities 
where  P.  procumbens  is  certainly  absent.  As  to  the  form 
of  abbreviated  citation,  “  P.  mixta  Nolte”  seems  to  me 
worthless,  as  it  conveys  no  hint  as  to  where  one  may  find 
either  the  original  specimen  or  the  original  description. 
P.  mixta  Nolte  ex  Reiclienbach,  or  (better)  P.  mixta  Nolte 
ex  Koch  will  serve;  but  if  the  citation  must  he  still 
further  reduced,  then  I  should  much  prefer  P.  mixta 
Reichenbach  or  (better)  P.  mixta  Koch.  My  view  is  that 
the  personal  addition  to  the  name  of  the  plant— the 
binominal — should  afford  a  hint  as  to  where  one  may  find 
the  original  description  or  the  original  specimen  under  the 
particular  name  in  question. — C.E.M. 
Alchemilla  — - - .  (Ref.  No.  3885).  Plentiful  by  a 
stream  on  Ben  Lawers,  Mid  Perth,  v.c.  88  (between  2000 
and  3000  feet),  Sept.  4,  1913.  Pointed  out  to  me  by  Dr. 
C.  E.  Moss  as  the  plant  named  in  this  station  by  Ostenfeld 
as  A.  acutidens  Buser;  more  abundant  there  than  ordinary 
A.  alpestris  Schmidt,  and  looking  distinct  from  it.  I 
understand,  however,  that  H.  Lindberg  referred  a  specimen 
of  the  original  (1911)  gathering  to  A.  alpestris ,  forma 
autumnalis. — E.S.M.  [Later,  Mr.  Marshall  said  that  he 
has  grown  the  plant  in  his  garden,  and  now  agrees  that 
it  is  A.  alpestris  Schmidt].  Clearly  A.  alpestris  Schmidt. 
It  does  not  at  all  present  the  features  of  A.  acutidens. 
C.E.S.  I  should  call  this  A.  vulgaris,  var.  alpestris  (Pohl.) 
=  A.  alpestris  Schmidt.— E.F.L.  Both  A.  alpestris  and 
A.  acutidens  grow  on  Ben  Lawers,  and  frequently  grow 
intermingled.  Why  should  not  hybrids  also  occur?  If 
they  do,  the  discrepancies  in  the  naming  of  the  forms 
