415 
have had to complain so markedly, but with ample justi- 
fication, of the disregard of the Regulations and the untidy 
and sometimes illegible labels and notes by not a few of our 
members and helpers ; and also of the too large untidy sheets 
of newspaper adopted by several. As Secretary and Editor 
of the Report I feel at last constrained to ask how do some 
of our kind friends expect a compositor to decipher the 
miserable hieroglyphics on some of the labels and notes* 
which come to the Distributor and then to myself ? It is 
difficult enough for a botanist to read some of these. If 
certain members would endeavour to neatly write, or type, 
one spare label (“ or an equivalent ”) for each set of plants, 
in the form and order in which for many years such entries 
have appeared in the Reports, many hours of work would be 
spared each Spring. 
Corrections to the Last Report. 
P. 374. — Viola agrestis Jord. Ref. X79, near Addington. 
Dr. E. Drabble writes to Mr. Lousley that his specimens 
“ may now dehnhely be called agrestis.” 
P. 374. — V. agrestis Jord. Ref. X 39, near Epsom Downs. 
Eor 1925 read 1926. 
P. 378. — Lathyrus tuberosus. For Ledbury read Sedbury. 
“ About three miles from Chepstow on the Glos. side of the 
Wye.” W. A. Shoolbred. 
P. 380. — Rosa arvensis var. White Down, Surrey, 1926; 
W. Biddiscombe. Col. Wolley-Dod reports that Keller writes 
of this: R. arvensis Huds. v. typica f. subbibracteata Braun 
proxima. Receptacula nunc ± ovoidea nunc subglobosa. 
P. 384. — Gnaphalium uliginosum. Mr. Little wrote, 
too late for the last Report, that although var. pilulare has 
been superseded in Lond. Cat. by var. lasiocaYpum Ledeb., 
he thinks it possible our plant may rather be var. pseudo- 
pilulare Scholz, of Asch. and Graebner. 
P. 386. — Hieracium praecox [419]. For var. castanetornm. 
Schultz. Bipontinus read var. castanetornm Schultz — Bipontinus. 
P. 390. — Orobanche Picridis. For I saw O.Picridis read 
I saw this plant 
P. 392. — Mentha Pulegium. For Chobham read Chelsham. 
