488 
plant,  (b)  The  larger  plant. — J.  E.  Little.  (A)  Remark¬ 
ably  luxuriant  F.  Vaillantii  Lois. — E.S.M.  This  is  F. 
Vaillantii  Lois,  (type),  gathered  late. — H.W.P.  (B)  From 
the  glaucous  foliage  and  its  cutting  ;  small  flowers ;  short 
fruiting  racemes,  and  especially  from  the  rather  small, 
rough,  often  hardly  retuse  fruit,  I  suspect  this  to  be  F. 
officinalis  x  Vaillantii,  between  which  two  species  it 
seems  very  nearly  intermediate.  Apparently  fertile. — 
E. S.M.  F.  officinalis  L.,  gathered  late  and  off  flower. 
Possibly  var.  minor  Haussk. — H.W.P.  [Later.]  The 
specimen  for  which  Mr.  Marshall  suggests  the  name  F. 
officinalis  x  Vaillantii  would  seem  to  be  in  better 
condition  than  that  on  the  sheet  referred  to  me,  but  I 
expect  it  is  really  the  same  form,  either  var.  minor  or 
var.  Wirtgeni  of  Haussknecht,  which  are  both  inter¬ 
mediate  in  some  degree  between  typical  F.  officinalis  and 
F.  Vaillantii,  and  formerly  often  passed  with  British 
botanists  as  the  latter.  I  should  doubt  whether  a  fertile 
plant  of  this  kind  would  be  a  direct  hybrid  between  the 
two  species. — H.W.P. 
Badicula  Nasturtium- aquaticum  Rendle  &  Britten, 
var.  microphylla  Rendle  &  Britten.  Boggy  ground,  Corfe 
Castle,  Dorset,  v.c.  9,  June  5,  1914. — -Ida  M.  Roper.  I 
believe  so,  but  it  is  not  (as  we  have  it  in  Britain)  a 
variety  I  have  much  faith  in  ! — C.E.S.  For  me  (and  Mr. 
Britten  agrees),  this  is  only  a  starved  state—  E.S.M.  A 
poor  little  variety,  which  J.  D.  Hooker  calls  “  a  starved 
terrestrial  form.”  The  specimens  are  right  enough,  for 
what  we  knew  formerly  as  var.  microphyllum  Rchb. — 
E.F.L. 
Erophila - .  (Ref.  No.  26).  Near  Gt.  Wymondley, 
Herts.,  v.c.  20,  April  12,  1914.  Many  simple  hairs,  but 
also  too  many  bifid  to  come  under  the  group  E.  glabrescens, 
though  by  selection  out  of  many  hundreds  I  have  obtained 
a  few  plants  which  seem  to  approach  it. — J.  E.  Little. 
(Sheet  1)  My  gathering  looks  mixed;  perhaps  stunted 
E.  verna  and  E.  stenocarpa. — E.S.M.  (Sheet  2)  I  cannot 
definitely  name  this.  It  comes  very  near  E.  prcecox  ;  but 
the  capsules  are  narrower  and  less  evenly  rounded  (tending 
to  be  jujube-shaped),  while  the  leaves  are  much  less  pilose, 
and  bear  more  simple  hairs  than  forked  ones. — E.S.M. 
