BOTANICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON. 
75 
near the wooden bridge, Ervum hirsutum, and the variety fS 
of Luzula campestris, called Luz. congesta, (from the flowers 
being capitate, and the capiluli being collected into an orbi- 
cular sessile head) were noticed. This is the Luciola congesta 
of ‘ English Botany/ plate 2718. In the canal Myriophyllum 
spicatum, Ranunculus aquatilis and Potamogeton clensum were 
observed. I have no doubt that in the months of July and 
August this locality offers an extensive field for the practical 
botanist. 
I must not however leave this locality without noticing a 
variety of the Calluna vulgaris altogether new to me, although 
mentioned by the older writers to occur occasionally on the 
heaths and commons in various parts of the country: — I 
allude to the (3 Erica vulgaris of Gerarde, 1880, and men- 
tioned in Ray’s 4 Synopsis Stirpium Britannicarum,’ p. 471, 
as follows : — 
“ Myricee folio hirsuto, Carolus Bauhin, 485. Myricse folio to- 
mentosis et incanis foliis Clusii, Johannes Bauhin, 1, 355. Vulgaris 
hirsutior. Parkinson, 1480. Common rough-leaved heath. Cum 
priore, a qua certe non puto specie differe (Doodio vero Synopsis ed. 
2, Appendix, 345), diversa fuit visa, propterea pracipue quia per 
totum ericetum Bayshot ut et Redhill, per 6 aut 8 milliarum iter, vix 
alia occurat Erica. Eaque Chammcyparissum canitie semuletur.” 
Again, in Ray’s ( Catalogus Plantarum Angliae,’ 2nd ed., 
published in 1677, be further adds : — 
“ Locis incultis supra Windesoram invenit Clusius. Quin et pas- 
sim occurrit non minus frequens quam vulgaris glabra, a qua, nostra 
sententia, non differt specifie, cum ei prater hirsutiem per omnia 
similis sit : nam glabra quoque alibi elatior est, alibi humilior et 
nunc dilutiore nunc saturatiore, ac proinde notse illse Clusii nihil 
valent.” 
Smith, in his c English Flora,’ vol. ii. p. 225, mentions the 
Erica vulgaris hirsuta, Ray’s Synopsis ; Erica ciliaris, Hud- 
son, ed. 1, 144, not of Linneeus. 
From these observations of the older botanists it appears 
that the variety Calluna vulgaris hirsuta, or as they term it. 
Erica vulgaris hirsuta , was known to them ; and from the 
description given in the two works of Ray, corresponds ex- 
actly to the variety in question. But although this variety 
is mentioned as far back as the year 1677, yet it has not 
found a place in any of the recently published Floras. In 
Macgillevray’s edition of Withering’s Botany, published in 
1833, there is no mention of it. Dr. Macreight, in his e Ma- 
nual of British Botany,’ published in 1837, does not notice 
it. Nor does Dr. Lindley, in his f Synopsis of the British 
