.479 
are  bristly,  whereas  those  of  R.  triphyllos  Wallr.  are 
described  as  “  glaberrimis  nitidis.” — J.G.  I  should  no 
doubt  have  written  “  var.  triphyllus  Hiern.”  R.  triphyllos 
Wallr.  must  be  a  different  plant.  Specimens  gathered  in 
the  Portbury  marshes  in  1888  were  named  li  R.  hetero- 
phyllus,  var.  triphyllus  ”  by  Messrs.  H.  &  J.  Groves,  and 
they  agree  well  with  a  Chepsbow  plant  labelled  “  tri¬ 
phyllus  ”  by  Mr.  Hiern. — J.W.W.  (in  lit.). 
R.  peltatus  Schrank  ?  Kenfig  Pool,  Glamorgansh., 
v.c.  41,  1905. — Coll.  J.  W.  Carr.  Comm.  A.  Bennett.  A 
rather  small-flowered  R.  peltatus  Schrank. — J.W.W.  The 
var.  (or  form)  truncatus  of  R.  peltatus  Schrank. —  E.S.M. 
I  think  a  form  of  R.  peltatus ,  or  a  hybrid  with  that 
species. — J.G. 
R.  [peltatus  Schrank,  forma~\.  Pond,  Barrow  Hill, 
N.  Somerset,  v.c.  6,  May  30,  1914.  A  small  form  with 
short  peduncles  and  very  hairy  fruit.  See  “FI.  Brist.” 
(1912),  p.  115. — Ida  M.  Roper.  Yes;  from  a  well-known 
local  station.  The  specimens  are  rather  young.  Two  or 
three  weeks  later,  submerged  leaves  and  peduncles  would 
have  shewn  to  better  advantage. —  J.W.W.  A  pretty 
plant ;  I  know  of  no  special  name  for  it. — E.S.M.  The 
cutting  of  the  floating  leaves,  the  short  pedicels,  and  the 
very  hairy  fruits  take  this  plant  away  from  R.  aquatilis  L. 
excl.  varieties  emend.  Godron  =  R.  heterophyllus  Wiggers 
non  Babington  =  R.  diver sifolius  Gilibert  fide  Rouy  & 
Foucaud  =  R.  peltatus  Schrank  (cf.  Moss  in  “  Journ.  Bot.” 
pp.  118-119,  1914),  and  take  it  towards  R.  trichophyllus 
Chaix  in  Villars  emend.  Moss  loc.  cit.  If  the  plant  is  not 
a  hybrid  of  R.  aquatilis  and  R.  trichophyllus  (as  above 
defined),  I  should  put  the  specimen  under  the  latter 
species.  However,  the  flowers  are  larger  than  the 
common  form  of  R.  trichophyllus  of  the  fens  of  eastern 
England,  where,  too,  this  species  rarely  develops  floating 
leaves.  I  think  the  plant  would  be  referred  to  R.  radians 
Revel  by  some  botanists,  though  personally  I  should 
question  this  identification.  It  also  agrees  with  some 
plants  which  Babington  referred  to  his  own  R.  hetero¬ 
phyllus',  but  Babington’s  specimens  of  his  R.  heterophyllus 
are  so  varied  that  I  seriously  doubt  the  wisdom  of  those 
British  botanists  who  retain  Babington’s  name  R.  hetero¬ 
phyllus.  Syme  (Eng.  Bot.  ed.  III.)  referred  R.  aquatilis 
