along them, in company with “ Goosefoots,” etc. — E. C. Wallace. 
Yes; I suppose this is var. subalatum Lej. & Court., as the 
perianth segments in the fruit are slightly 7 winged on the keel ; 
they are certainly not obtusely keeled. In my experience this 
is the commoner form. — E. Drabble. 
P. dumetorum L. [Ref. 1138]. Hedgebank, south end of 
Thursley Common, Surrey, Aug. 22, 1926. — E. C. Wallace. I 
agree, but I have never seen dumetorum before with such small 
fruit and such weakly-developed perianth-wings. On looking 
through a series it is clear that in all dumetorum plants a few of 
the perianths are practically wingless ; but the nut is unmis- 
takeable. — C. E. Salmon. 
P. Persicaria L., var. elatum Gren. & Godr. Farmyard, 
Middle Town, Clevedon, N. Somerset, v.c. 6, Sept. 9, 1926. — 
Ida M. Roper. In var. agreste (as in elatum) the young spikes 
are tapered, so this is no criterion, and the leaves may be broader 
or narrower. But the mature spikes of agreste are in general 
stouter and shorter, as these are. Miss Roper’s ochrese are loose, 
whereas for elatum they should be close. — J. E. Little. 
P. Hydropiper L., var. densiflorum A. Br. [Ref. No. 2988]. 
Brox, Surrey, Oct. 2, 1926. Leg. C. E. Britton. Comm. S. L. 
Bot. Inst. See note by C. E. Britton in Journ. Bot., Dec. 1926, 
p. 328, on P. Hydropiper var. densiflorum A. Br. — W. R. Sherrin. 
P. minus Huds. [Ref. 76]. Margin of pond in Hampton 
Court Park, Middlesex, Sept. 11, 1926. — J. E. Lousley. 
Mercurialis perennis L. 3 forma. Near Thursley, Surrey, 
April 22, 1926. This form with ovate leaves and rather short 
petioles (but not M. ovata Sternb. et Hoppe) was growing in a 
patch about three or four feet across. It looked cpiite different 
from other plants of the same species growing plentifully near it. 
Apart from their shape, the leaves struck me as being rather 
more glaucous than usual on the undersides. — I. A. Williams. 
I also fail to see anything unusual in this plant. — E. Drabble. 
Urtica dioica L. , var. angustifolia Wimm. & Graeb. Shady spot 
by stream, Arbrook Common, Surrey, Aug. 14, 1926. — D. G. 
Catcheside. Yes ; I think it is var. angustifolia W. & G. 
E. Drabble. 
Ulmus campestris var. suberosa Wahlenberg. Laxenburg, 
Austria Inferior, April 14, 1922.— Dr. K. Rechinger. Although 
no foliage is sent I have very little doubt that this is the tree we 
call here U. nitens var. suberosa Henry ( U. campestris var. suberosa 
