71 
Rosa micrantha Sm. [var. hystrix Baker], Barton Mills, 
W. Norfolk, v.c. 28, Aug. 21, 1930. — IdaM. Roper. Not liystrix. 
It is on altogether too large a scale for that, but it is the 
rarer variety septicola Gren. which I have only seen from 
E. Kent and Surrey, so it is a new county record. — A. H. 
Wolley-Dod. The styles of this are hispid, and so my specimen 
could not come under R. micrantha. It is R. rubiginosa var. 
apricorum (Rip.), and var. comosa (Rip.) does not always 
differ. — J. Fraser. 
Rosa cigrestis var. arvatica (Pug.). Hillside at Hascombe, 
Surrey, Aug. 1930. Coll. E. B. Bishop. Comm. W. Biddis- 
combe. R. cigrestis var. arvatica Rouy. Correctly named. — 
A. H. Wolley-Dod. 
Sorbus Aria Crantz. var. majestica Zabel. Laneside by 
Oxted chalk pits, Surrey, Aug. 3, 1930. See Journal of Botany, 
1930, 175. — E. C. Wallace. Yes, the same as Pyrus Aria var. 
majestica Prain. I hope Mr. Wallace agrees with me that it is 
a wild tree and could not have been planted where growing. 
— J. Fraser. Yes, quite native, no suspicion that it was 
planted. — E. C. W. This comes from the original locality for 
the variety, but material showing the characteristic large 
fruits is desirable. — H. W. Pugsley. 
Crataegus monogyna Jacq. x Oxyacantha ? Brockley Combe, 
N. Somerset, June 6 and Aug. 0, 1930. Tall trees with rather 
large leaves. — H. S. Thompson. So I should call it. The 
pubescent peduncles and calyx tube, as well as the small 
fruit and solitary style are those of C. monogyna. The little- 
divided cuneate leaves are those of C. Oxyacantha. — J. Fraser. 
Callitriche platycarpa Kuetz ? [Ref. 4323]. Ditch, Sharp- 
ham Peat Moor, Somerset, v.c. 6, June 14, 1930. The 
rosettes formed a striking feature above the dense mass of 
submerged aquatics, and they remained conspicuous until 
October, but on November 17 were frozen under half an 
inch of ice.- — H. S. Thompson. Yes, this is one of the many 
forms included under the aggregate C. stagnalis Scop. There 
are plenty of fruits on my example but they are rather 
immature. They are relatively large, flattish, almost round 
in the broad view they most readily present, length and breadth 
sub-equal. Looked at from above, the lobes are visibly 
divergent from their common axis — some authors (viewing 
them from the front) describe them as parallel. Both terms 
