23 
correctness of the name ; but in the absence of flowers it is difficult 
to determine the species. Still a comparison with a Kentish specimen 
of undoubted neglecta , for which I am indebted to Mr. Hanbury , 
leads me to think this correctly named. — T. R. A. B. The small 
bladders and fine segments of the leaves lead me to endorse the name 
neglecta in spite of the bristles on the young leaves. I observe that 
some of the leaves are without bristles ; probably the character is by 
no means constant, but 1 know too little of neglecta in a living state 
to be able to judge. It is to be hoped that flowering specimens from 
this station may be obtained, which would settle its name. 
Botanists who may visit Moray will, it is hoped, endeavour to procure 
flowering specimens of the Utricular ia, believed by Mr. F. M. Webb 
to be U. Bremii , Heer, which was collected by Mr. Jas. B. Brechan, 
August 16, 1833, at Moss of Iushoch, Nairnshire, and seems to have 
occurred also in the Loch of Spynie. (See Journ. Bot., 1876, p. 146 ) 
I have only a very poor specimen of the Loch of Spynie plant, quite 
insufficient to decide upon, but so far as the leaves and bladders are 
concerned it resembles U. Bremii , and most certainly is not U. in- 
termedia. — J. T. Boswell. 
Chenopodium urbicum, Linn. “ Approximating to var. intermedium. 
NearChobham, Surrey, 1867 and 1872.” — H. C. Watson. 
Atriplex “ rosea,'” Linn. “ About three large plants on (he West 
Sussex coast, between Coppard's Gap and Southwick, near cottage- 
rubbish, but probably brought in ship’s ballast. September, 1875.”— 
J. L. Warren. (See Journ. Bot., vol. iv., n.s., p. 336.) This is 
not A. rosea of Koch, Grenier & Godron, Billot, exsic., no. 842, &c , 
but I believe A. laciniata, “ Linn.,” Koch., FI. Germ, et Helv., ed. 7, 
p. 703, and Gren. & Godr. FI. de Fr., vol. iii., p. 11 ; Billot, 
exsic. no. 1763 & 1763 (bis). Linnseus, according to Dr. Ascher- 
son, confounded under the name laciniata the A. arenaria, Woods, 
and a plant, which in the first ed. of the “ Species Plantarum,” he 
described as A. tatarica : this, however, is not the A. tatarica of 
Schk. & Koch, which is A. oblongifolia, Waldst. & Kit. If Koch 
be right in citing A. sinuata. Hoff., as a synonym of his A. laciniata , it 
would be well to adopt this name for the plant to get quit of the con- 
fusion in the nomenclature. See Eng. Bot., ed. iii., vol. viii., p. 35 ; 
to which I must add that Nuttall having named an American Atriplex 
arenaria ” before Woods so named the European plant, the latter 
must be called by some other name. This Babington has done in the 
7th edition of his “ Manual,” where the plant stands as A. farinosa, 
Dumortier. Mrs. Lomax sends this plant (A. laciniata , Koch, or 
“ sinuata ,” Hoffm.) labelled “ Chenopodium glaucum” collected on 
Marazion Green, Cornwall, August, 1875. — J. T. Boswell. 
