15 
— C. E. Salmon. Yes, I think it may be left under what has 
been called the segregate E. verna.—]. E. Little. Were the 
fruits terete when fresh ? Their outline is exactly like that 
in my oedocarpa (Journ. Bot., 1926, p. 45), though the plants 
are taller and the leaves more densely hairy. At Prof. 
Harm’s request I sent specimens of oedocarpci to Dr. O. E. 
Schulz in May, 1926. He stated that the plant was unlike 
any Erophila with which he was acquainted, and included 
it in his Monograph in Das Pflanzenreich, 1927. So far I 
have seen oedocarpa Only in Cheshire and Derbyshire. Mr. 
Wallace’s plant is very close to it, but without the evidence 
of fresh capsules it is difficult to be certain of its identity. 
— E. Drabble. 
Lepidium latifolium L. Bank of River Colne, near 
Wivenhoe, Essex, June 28, 1904. Coll. A. 0. Hume ; Comm. 
S. Lond. Bot. Inst. My specimen is peculiar in having the 
serrated leaves passing so high up on the stem. Evidently 
the species varies in that respect. — J. Fraser. 
Lepidium ruder ale L. (1) Gt. Wymondley, Herts., Sept. 29, 
1928, Aug. 6, 1929 ; there is sometimes a narrow margin to 
the seed. (2) Mill yard, Broxbourne, Herts., Nov. 9, 1929. — 
J. E. Little. Beautiful specimens of this Crucifer, which 
often loses most of its leaves in dry situations. — J. Fraser. 
Thlaspi alpestre L. Winch Bridge, Upper Teesdale, 
Durham, June 3, 1903. Coll. A. 0. Hume. Comm. S. Lond. 
Bot. Inst. 
Thlaspi alpestre L. var. occitanicum (Jorcl.). Roadside walls 
near leadworks, Llanrwst, Carnarvonshire, June 10, 1905. 
Coll. A. O. Hume. Comm. S. Lond. Bot. Inst. The glaucous 
leaves and the broad wings of the more advanced silicules evi- 
dently make the variety correct ; but I would have liked to see 
the auricles of the leaves more acute. The small and nearly 
obsolete teeth to the leaves is another distinction. — J. Fraser. 
This is not T. occitanicum Jord., which, as pointed out by 
Mr. White (FI. Bristol, p. 159), is a biennial plant with ± 
toothed leaves. The British forms of T. alpestre need further 
revision. — H. W. Pugsley. This is not Th. occitanicum Jord., 
though I believe it is what has often been so called. The 
fruits do not agree with Jordan’s figure, Obs. iii, pi. I bis, 
fig A ; the wings are much less prominent and more rounded, 
and the whole outline of the fruit is less triangular. More- 
over the leaves are entire-margined, not coarsely and irregu- 
