486 
The  others  seem  to  be  juvenile-flowering  plants  of  some¬ 
thing  else. — E.D. 
V.  arvensis  L.,  var.  ?  Horby  Hills,  Leics.,  v.c.  55, 
June  27,  1914. — A.  R.  Horwood.  The  plants  are  so  badly 
dried  that  they  are  not  worth  keeping  or  troubling  about. 
They  appear  to  be  V.  Deseglisei  Jord. — E.D. 
Dianthus  prolifer  L.  Shingle,  Pagham,  W.  Sussex, 
v.c.  18,  June  13,  1914.— J.  E.  Little. 
Saponaria  officinalis  L.,  var.  puberula  Wierzb.  Road¬ 
side,  Abinger  Hammer,  Surrey,  v.c.  17,  Aug.  13,  1914. — 
A.  J.  Crosfield.  Correct,  I  should  say. — E.S.M.  Yes.  I 
nomce  that  Rouy  &  Foucaud  (“  FI.  Fr.”)  give  the  authority 
for  the  variety,  as  “  Syme  in  herb.”  with  the  description, 
“  plante  +  pubescente  a  calices  pubescents.” — C.E.S. 
S.  ocymoides  L.  ( fide  H.  S.  Thompson).  On  gravel 
“  pipes  ”  in  chalk  cutting,  N.  of  Knebworth  Station,  east 
side,  Herts.,  v.c.  20,  May  11,  1914.  Central  and  S.  Europe 
— sub-alpine.  About  7  plants.  Growing  with  a  Dianthus, 
and  Cerastium.  An  escape.  Apparently  quite  established, 
and  some  distance  from  houses. — J.  E.  Little.  Yes ; 
apparently  this  is  the  type  ( genuina  Gren.  &  Godr.). — 
E.S.M. 
Cerastium  Edmondstonii  Ostenfeld  =  C.  arcticum 
Lange,  pro  parte  —  C.  latifolium  Smith  (non  L.).  (Ref. 
No.  3927).  On  granite,  at.  3400  feet,  Castle  Corrie,  Stob 
Coire  an  Easain,  Glen  Spean,  W.  Inverness,  v.c.  97, 
July  24,  1914. — Edward  S.  Marshall. 
G.  cerastoides  Britton  ( trigynum  Yill.).  Castle  Corrie, 
Stob  Coire  an  Easain,  Glen  Spean,  at  3400  feet,  W. 
Inverness,  v.c.  97,  July  24,  1914. — Edward  S.  Marshall. 
Arenaria  tenuifolia  L.  Willbury  Hill  Gravel  Pit, 
Hitchin,  Herts.,  v.c.  20,  June  8,  1912.  Except  in  the  fact 
that  the  specimens  marked  A  are  nearly  eglandular,  and 
those  marked  B  are  slightly  glandular-setose  at  the  base 
of  the  calyx,  there  is  no  evident  difference  between  the 
plants.  Mr.  C.  E.  Salmon  (B.E.C.  Rept.,  1909,  p.  442) 
remarks  that  Corbiere  says  (FI.  Norm.,  p.  105)  the  number 
of  stamens  and  length  of  capsule  are  not  reliable 
characters  for  distinguishing  these  varieties.  In  these 
