*)9 
& ’/.sum Pers. ( = nmculaium Trim. <fe Dyer). It agree 1 well with 
the d scription of that plant in <( Camb. Brit. FI.” II. 1 7, where, 
although attention is rightly drawn to its smaller seeds as com- 
pareo with those of P. lapathifolium , their size is not ; ven. In 
this S alford plant they measure approximately 2 mm. long by 
'Jmn. broad, as compared with “about 3mm. lor,,: and 2 - 5 
broad (“Camb. FI.”) of those of lapathifolium. Cu tis (“FI. 
Lond. fasc. 1, plate 25) gives a good figure of the tall erect state 
of P . nodosum, calling it A Pensylvanicum, var. caule maculato, and 
in the description lays stress on the importance of the haracters 
of the spotted stem and small seeds, 'lire ochrae in tho Shalford 
examples are practically eciliate, but described in “Camb. FI.”, 
under P. nodosum, as “shortly ciliate” (as against “not, or, only 
slightly ciliate” in lapathifolium ■). Curtis (loc. cit.) makes no 
mention of the ochrae being fringed, and from his beautiful 
drawing it would certainly appear that they were not so. Mr. 
Hunnybun has drawn them in “Camb. FI.” without cilia also. 
An examination of undoubted examples of P. nodosum shows that 
this character is not a stable one, and that ochrae, fringed or not, 
occur in this species. — C.E.S. P. nodosum Pers. (macuiatum Bab.). 
I have seen it there, by the pond where Oyperus fusevs grows. — 
E.S.M. 
B imex maximus Schreb. Fishbourne Millstream. W. Sussex, 
v.c. 13, July 30, 1916. — Coll. R. J. Burdon. Comm. J. E. Little. 
R. Hydrolapatlmm Huds., var. latifolius Trimen (11. maximus Auct. 
Angl ). — E.G B. (See “ Jl. Bot.” V. (1876), pp. 27 & 283.) 
Euphorbia platyphyllos L. In two or three fields in Goatham, 
a hnnlet of Edraondsham, Dorset, v.c. 9, where it has persisted 
for some years, and is probably native, Aug. 22, 1916. — E. F. 
Linton. < 
E. strida L. A casual at Ledbury, Herefordsb., v.c. 36, July 
20 1916. — S. H. Bickham. 
E. exigua L., var. relusa L. Railway bank, Walswortb, near 
Hitchin, Herts., v.c. 20, July 22, 1916. — H. 0. Littlebury. 
Ir stead of giving this specific rank, as Mr. Littlebury does on 
bis labels, I should be inclined, almost, to place it as something 
less than a variety under E. exigua. As has been pointed out 
before, one may find leaves characteristic of both type and 
‘ /ariety” on the same plant. One of the soecim ms before me 
is rctuse leaves ; the other makes a decided appr ach to exioua. 
-C.E.S, 
