532 
T.  dubium  Sibth.,  var.  pygmaeum  (Soy-Will.).  Bank 
of  Avon,  Bristol,  N.  Somerset,  v.c.  6,  May  28,  1915 _ 
Ida  M.  Roper.  I  believe  correctly  named.  It  is  ap¬ 
parently  the  sub -var.  pauciftorurn  Coss.  &  Germ.  “FI 
Paris,”  ed.  2,  164  (1861).— C.E.S. 
Oxytropis  uralensis  DC.  Coast,  Melvicb,  W.  Suther¬ 
land,  v.c.  108,  July  14,  1915. — Edward  S.  Marshall. 
O.  campestris  DC.  Glen  Fiagh,  Clova,  Forfarsh., 
v.c.  90,  July  11,  1915.  More  plentiful,  I  think,  than  in 
1888  ;  a  good  many  seedlings  occur  on  screes  below  the 
main  station,  down  to  about  1700  feet,  but  seldom  flower. 
— Edward  S.  Marshall. 
Ornithopus - ?  Grassy  bank  at  Friday  Street, 
Abinger,  Surrey,  v.c.  17,  Sept.  20,  1914. — E.  B.  Bishop. 
I  should  have  said  this  was  O.  roseus  but  Coste  says  the  pod 
is  glabrous  in  that !  It  is  anything  but  glabrous  here  ! _ 
C.E.S.  The  plants  are  O.  roseus  Duf.  (O.  sativus  Gren.  & 
Godr.  vix  Brot.),  and  not  O.  sativus  Brot.  sec.  Boiss  &  Reut., 
(O.  isthmocavpus  Coss.).  Both  species  have  both  hairs  and 
glabrous  pods,  though,  as  is  unfortunately  common, 
authors  have  without  adequate  study  emended  the 
original  descriptions  to  fit  only  the  forms  they  know. 
O.  sativus  Brot.  seems  to  be  undoubtedly  O.  isthmocavpus 
Coss.,  and  differs  m  having  arcuate  and  not  straight 
legumes  with  a  very  long  incurved  beak  and  isthmi  between 
the  lomenta.  One  specimen  has  an  isthmus  on  one  pod, 
but  the  rest  are  quite  normal  and  the  other  characters 
show  it  to  be  O.  roseus.  None  of  the  specimens  in  Herb. 
Mus.  Brit,  showed  such  an  abnormality ! — A.J.W. 
Lathyrus  Aphaca  L.,  var.  affinis  Guss.  Waste  ground, 
Brislington,  N.  Somerset,  v.c.  6,  June  11,  1915. — Ida  M. 
Roper.  Rouy’s  description  fits  this  plant  admirably. 
Nyman  treats  L.  affinis  Guss.  as  a  subspecies.  It  differs 
from  ordinary  British  L.  Aphaca  by  its  very  pale  yellow 
flowers,  etc.— E.S.M.  I  am  unable  to  find  satisfactory 
characters  to  separate  L.  affinis  Guss.  and  other  segregates 
from  L.  Aphaca  L.  This  does  not  agree  with  Gussone’s 
description  and  cannot  be  so  named. — A.J.W. 
[■ Rubus  caeresiensis  Sudre  &  Gravet] ,  subsp.  or  var. 
integribasis  Rogers.  This  is  the  plant  represented  in 
