286 
frequent, is usually easily detected in the field, and when speci- 
mens are collected with weak fruiting peduncles and imperfectly 
developed heads of carpels it is always advisable to investigate 
the matter on the spot to see if hybridity is the explanation. — 
J. Groves. 
R. Drouettii F. Schultz. Rhine, Shapwick Moor, N. Somerset, 
v.e. 6, May 2, 1924. — Ida M. Roper. Yes. — J. Groves. 
R. heterophyllus Weber. Rhine, Shapwick Drove, N. Somerset, 
v.e. 6, May 2, 1924. — Ida M. Roper. I should so label it. 
Weber’s name' was intended in a much wider sense than that in 
which we now use it. Those nomenclaturists therefore, who hold 
it to be necessary for the citation of an authority to denote 
precisely the same in which a name is being used, would add 
“ emend ,” but by what author or authors it is not easy to 
say, the name having been applied so variously. — J. Groves. 
R. heterophyllus Weber, var. triphyllus (Hiern). In a ditch, 
Mitcham Common, Surrey, v.e. 17, May 10, 1924. — D. G. 
Catcheside. Evidently the plant which my brother and I 
collected in' the same locality as far back as 1876, and which 
Mr. Hiern referred to his /. triphyllus. The very characteristic 
fioating-leaves, however, are not well represented in these speci- 
mens. — J. Groves. 
R. hederaceus L., var. omiophyllus (Ten.). In a ditch on 
Mitcham Common, Surrey, v.e. 17, May 10,. 1924. — D. G. 
Catcheside. This is no doubt the /. homoeophyllus of Hiern, 
which that author identified with R. omiophyllus , Tcnore. It is 
however only, I think, a floating state of hederaceus as suggested 
by Hiern, and I do not think any firm lino can be drawn in the 
series between it and the little ivy-leaved form of drying-up 
mud. — J. Groves. 
R. scoticus E. S. M. Inchnadamph, W. Sutherland, v.e. 108, 
July 18, 1908. — W. A. Shoolbred. This plant does not agree 
with Marshall’s original description (with figure) of R. petio laris 
(= R. scoticus ) in Journ. Bot. xxx, p. 289 (1892), which states 
that the stem is erect, the original root-leaves reduced to subulate 
petioles, the later ones with or without a short, blunt, linear- 
oblong blade, all being quite entire and with very long petioles, 
and the flowers few (1 — 4) or solitary. Moss (Camb. Brit. Flora, 
iii, p. 128) doubts the constancy of the foliar characters assigned 
to R. petiolaris and places it under R. Flammula L. as a variety 
of petiolaris Lange. There is good material of this plant in Hb. 
