186 
Polygonum Hydropiper X Persicaria ? One large plant 
with both parents and two other species on the bank of the 
Wey at Wisley, Surrey, Aug. 20, 1932. Mr. C. E. Britton 
agreed with my determination of this plant as a hybrid. — 
E. C. Wallace. Most probably correct, though surprisingly 
fertile. Of this hybrid (x P. hybridum Chaub.). Bony 
remarks “ Se presente sans l’aspect du P. mite Sell rank on de 
sa var. hydropiperoides ; et il est ordinairement tres difficile, 
en herbier, de distinguer la plante hybride de l'espece.’' (FI. 
Fr. XII, p. 104 (1910)). These specimens have certainly 
considerable resemblance to P. mite .... It will be noticed, 
however, that the spikes are less leafy and more crowded than 
in mite , and that the ochreae are not so longly ciliate as in that 
species. — J. E. Lousley. This is P. mite Schrank. — H. W. 
Pugsley. Eglandular and not acrid ; where is the Hydropiper 
influence ? We call this P. mite Sclirank. — E. Drabble and 
A. J. Wilmott. 
Polygonum nodosum Pers. ? Berrow sands, N. Somerset, 
Sept. 3, 1932. (with E. C. Wallace). Ochreae long and 
prominent ; black blotches on leaves very conspicuous. — 
H. S. Thompson. The perianth of the plant sent is eglandular, 
and the fruits are partly bifacial and partly trigonous. It 
seems to be P. lapathifolium (or possibly P. nodosum) X 
Persicaria. — H. W. Pugsley. 
Rumex glomeratus x sanguineus ? Waste ground, Clifton, 
Bristol, W. Gios., Sept. 10, 1932. Growing near sanguineus. 
■ — H. S. Thompson. Mr. E. G. Baker kindly sends Hauss- 
knecht’s original German description of R. conglomeratus x 
sanguineus (R. Ruhmeri mihi) which is too long to print. 
Prof. Danser of Groningen kindly writes : It is quite possible 
that this is R. conglomeratus x sanguineus ; but a hybrid 
between two species so closely allied cannot be recognised 
from such scanty material. — Danser. I think Mr. Thompson 
has named this correctly, though I have not previously seen 
this hybrid. It greatly resembles the plants which have been 
named R. viridis (Sibth.) x glomeratus, and the suggested 
parentage is not improbable. — E. Drabble. 
Rumex sanguineus L. Waste ground, Clifton, W. Glos., 
Aug. 27, 1932. Rare in Bristol district. — H. S. Thompson. 
Yes. — E. Drabble. 
