510 
it  under  C.  submersum.  C.  submersum  L.,  var.  apiculatum, 
Garcke  =  G.  apiculatum  Cham,  in  “Linnma”  IV.,  ex  Schu¬ 
mann  FI.  Brasil.  III.  3,  749  (1894).  But  this  plant  must  be 
placed  under  submersum  (if  the  two  species  submersum 
and  demersum  are  kept  separate).  It  has  not  the  fruit 
of  C.  demersum.  I  agree  with  Mr.  Marshall. — A. B.  C. 
demersum  L.,  var.  apiculatum  (Chamisso).  There  are  (so 
far  as  my  observations  go)  three  distinct  British  forms  of 
Ceratophyllum,  namely,  (1)  C.  demersum  B.  (sensu  str.), 
(2)  C.  submersum  L.  (sensu  str.),  and  (3)  an  intermediate 
form,  C.  apiculatum  Chamisso.  Though  intermediate, 
the  distribution  of  this  last  is  against  its  being  considered 
a  hybrid.  Authorities  differ  as  to  how  these  three  plants 
should  be  arranged.  Borne  reduce  all  three  forms  to  a 
single  species,  C.  demersum  L.  emend.  Others  retain  two 
species,  C.  demersum  and  C.  submersum.  Of  these,  some 
place  the  intermediate  plant  under  C.  demersum,  whilst 
others  place  it  under  C.  submersum.  Still  others  retain 
each  as  a  species.  I  follow  the  majority  of  authors  of 
recent  continental  floras  in  placing  the  intermediate  plant 
as  a  variety  of  C.  demersum. — C.E.M. 
Juucus  p onglomeratus  L.,  var.  laxus  Asch.  &  Graebn.] . 
(Ref.  No.  119).  Caine,  N.  Wilts.,  v.c.  7,  Aug.  23,  1914. — 
W.  C.  Barton.  Why  not  J.  effusas  L.  ?  It  has  the  pale 
inflorescence  of  that ;  and  the  capsules  are  similar. 
E.S.M.  I  do  not  see  how  this  differs  from  J.  effusus  L. 
— E.F.L. 
J.  maritimus  Lam.,  var.  atlanticus  mihi.  Salt-marsh, 
St.  Marys,  Scilly  Is.,  v.c.  1,  Sept.  5,  1914.  By  the  kind¬ 
ness  of  Mrs.  Stideford,  of  “  Lunnon,”  I  am  enabled  to 
distribute  another  parcel  of  this  interesting  rush.  My 
correspondent  secured  some  good  stems  before  the  marsh 
was  mown,  but  has  cut  them  shorter  than  is,  perhaps, 
desirable.  In  my  note  on  this  plant  (Jl.  Bot.  Jan.  1914, 
p.  19)  I  proposed  for  it  the  varietal  name  atlanticus, 
having  concluded  that  the  allied  form  J.  rigidus  Desv. 
(Rouy,  “  FI.  de  France  ”)  described  as  “  forte,  rigide  ” 
could  not  be  identical.  That  description  indeed  seems  to 
fit  the  type  maritimus  of  this  country  rather  than  the 
variation  under  notice,  which  has  a  somewhat  weak  and 
slender  stem  from  four  to  five  feet  high.  Still,  as  Dr. 
Moss  has  suggested,  it  will  be  well  to  compare  this  plant 
