DISTIUBUTOK’s KEi'ORT FOR 1948 
93 
xMcnthii (jentiHs \j. var. iHirieyatu (Sole) Siii. (Ret. No. 6109.) 
13, W. Sus,sex; Rexley Hill, Aug. 22nd, 1948.— E. O. Wall.\ce. “ Ex- 
cellent siieciinen of a Mint, which is proliably always a garden outcast. 
The verticels of Sole’s specimen are on much longer [leduncles.” R. 
Giuh.vm. “ The variegation looks susiiiciously like a pathological state 
(e.g. virus disease); the achloroi»hyllose areas spread outwards from the 
nerves, and in the centre are brown with decay. The existence of a 
varietal name with synonymy and previous British record shows that 
(assuming that the [iresent plant is identical with that of Sole, etc.) 
the condition has occurred on previous occasions.” — D. B. Young. 
Scutrllariu ininur h. (Bef. No. 3427.) 17, Surrey; Epsom Common, 
Se[)t. 1st, 1928. — E. C. Wallace. 
xStaclij/a aiiibiyuu Sm. 1, W. Cornwall; field border, Lambouriie 
Hill, Perranzabuloe, Aug. 23rd, 1948. — F. Rilstone. 
Stachys . 1, W. Cornwall; border of a cornfield, Ijambourne, 
Perranzabuloe, xVug. 23rd, 1948. A weed of cultivated ground allied 
to S. pulustris but apparently distinct from it. I believe this plant 
has been responsible for much confusion with xS. anihigua Sm. The 
hybrid, however, is a very different plant with flowers and root system 
very neai' S. sylvath-a and it does not produce good seed. The plant of 
cultivated ground usually has paler flowers than S. palitstris, the corolla 
tube often nearly white and so cons])icuous, well-developed spikes are 
denser with more flowers to a verticel, the plant is tall (up to 5 ft.) 
and robust and grej'-green and most of the leaves are distinctly stalked. 
As in S. 2)cibitstris, the roots in autumn develop numerous fleshy jointed 
tidiers. — F. Rilstone. “ Air Rilstone presents a strong case for the 
existence of two different plants confused under the names xS. amhujua 
But I wonder whether the present plant is the descendent of a chance 
fertile hybrid l)etween sylvatica and palusirls, or possibly a back-cross 
with piiliiafris? The lack of information on the cytology of S. sylvatica 
and the F, hybrid with the palustris makes it imjiossible to say whether 
sexual reproduction of the hybrid could ever be achieved. My sheet 
is not very homogeneous; the smaller of the two specimens has more 
the facies of palustris.” — D. P. Young. “ The recorded chromosome 
numbers are: S. palvstris, 2n = c. 64, 102; S. sylvatica, 2n = 48, 66. 
Further work is clearly needed and the numbers, due to various 
authors, do not seem satisfactory. They do, however, suggest the possi- 
bility of hyl)rids differing morphologically and of both fertile and 
sterile hybrids. Tt is highly desirable that Mr Rilstone’s plant should 
be raised from seed to see the behaviour of its progeny and that its 
chromosome number should be determined. It may as he suggests be 
a distinct species though perhaps ultimately of hybrid origin.” — E. F. 
Warburg . 
