516 
I  agree.— E.F.L.  Schumacher  makes  his  L.  ciristatum  the 
type  of  the  species  in  his  “  Baum.  pi.  Sadi.”  I.,  88  (1801). 
It  is  t.  748  of  the  “  FI.  Danica,”  and  Lange  calls  it  L.  repens 
L.,  /.  aristata  in  his  “Nom.  FI.  Danicae,”  25  (1887). — 
A.B.  This  is  identical  with  my  No.  1182  (Paddles worth, 
E.  Kent,  1893),  so  named  by  Hackel ;  but  I  noted  that 
“  part  of  the  sheet  was  L.  italicum ,”  and  in  both  cases 
I  am  forced  to  conclude  that  one  has  merely  to  do  with 
a  rather  small  form  of  L.  niultiflorum  Lam.  L.  italicum 
Brann.). —  E.S.M. 
Agropyron  repens  Beauv.,  var.  ?  Edge  of  salt-marsh, 
Keyhaven,  S.  Hants.,  v.c.  11,  Aug.  1914. — J.  Comber. 
A.  repens,  var.  Leersianum,  I  believe. — E.S.M.  Var.  bar- 
batum  Duval- Jeune  [—  var.  Leersianum  Gray] . — A.B. 
A.  [junceum  x  repens  Beauv.] .  Keyhaven,  S.  Hants., 
v.c.  11,  Aug.  1914 — J.  Comber.  Not  at  all  like  my 
specimens  of  the  hybrid,  named  by  Hackel.  Is  it  not 
A.  pungens  ?  —  E.S.M.  I  should  have  called  this  A. 
pungens  R.  &  S.,  var.  pycnanthum  (Gren.  &  Godr.) ; 
and  I  see  that  my  specimens  of  this  var.  from  Hengistbury 
Head  on  the  same  coast,  confirmed  by  Dr.  Hackel  are 
almost  identical  with  Mr.  Comber’s  plant _ E.F.L.  A. 
pungens  R.  &  S.,  but  not  var.  pycnanthum ;  that  has 
glumes  and  pales  obtuse — which  this  has  not. — A.B. 
Azolla  filiculoides  Lam.  Ditch  between  Jesus  Grove 
and  Midsummer  Common,  Cambridge,  Cambs.,  v.c.  29, 
Oct.  1913. — G.  Goode.  Fine  specimens;  beautifully  dried. 
—E.S.M. 
Equisetum  arvense  L.,  var.  [decumbens  Meyer] .  Waste 
ground,  Bristol,  W.  Glos.,  v.c.  34,  April  23  &  June  16, 
1914. —  Ida  M.  Roper.  I  do  not  know  var.  decumbens.  It 
is  not  given  in  Rouy’s  “  FI.  de  France.”  The  present 
plant  is  common  enough  in  cultivated  ground;  I  had  not 
thought  of  it  as  being  more  than  a  “  state.”  Koch 
(“  Synopsis,”  ed.  II.,  964)  rightly  refuses  it  varietal  rank. 
— E.S.M.  I  think  this  is  not  Meyer’s  plant ;  that  is  quite 
decumbent,  the  stem  lying  on  the  ground,  and  the 
branches  rising  up  one  before  the  other,  and  very  dense 
(quite  a  dense  little  bush),  with  many  (hundreds)  of  stems. 
I  should  call  this  a  form  of  the  ordinary  alpestre  variety. 
—A.B. 
