300 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES. 
that this seems to differ from the Pyrenean S. hirsuta in the same 
way, although not so markedly. 57 — C. C. Babington. 
Saxifraga Geum , L., var. dentata. Cult, hort., 28th May, 1890; 
root from Co. Kerry. — A ugustin Ley. “This may pass as a form 
of dentata ; but in the heart-shaped base of the leaf and the blunt- 
pointed serrations it reverts towards the type. 55 — E. F. Linton. 
Sedum Forsterianum , Sm., var. virescens. Mountain cliff, Craig- 
y-llyn, Glamorgan, 29th July, 1890 . — Augustin Ley. Craig-y-rocks 
dingle, Radnor Forest, 27th June, 1890 . — Augustin Ley. 
Callitriche hamulata , Kuetz. Bottom of Stickle Tarn, Great 
Langdale, Westmoreland, August, 1890. — H. E. Fox. ' “ C. 
hamulataP — Arthur Bennett. 
C. . Grasmere, Westmoreland, August, 1890. — H. E. Fox. 
“ C. hamulataP — Arthur Bennett. 
Epilobium montanum x obscurum. Melrose, Roxburgh, 24th 
July, 1890. — W. R. Linton. 
Epilobium ; hybrids of E. obscurum and parviflonun. Lode 
Lane, Alstonfield, N. Staffs., August, 1890. I think there can be 
little doubt that the specimens in both covers are hybrids of 
E. obscurum and parviflorum , amongst which two species they were 
growing ; but as it seemed that some few of the specimens sent 
tended more toward E. parviflorum than did the others, I labelled 
these rather as hybrids of E. parviflorwn than of E. obscurum. 
Perhaps other botanists may consider that they should have received 
the same name as the others. — W. H. Purchas. “Correct. 55 — 
E. F. Linton. 
Circcea intermedia , L. C. Grasmere, Westmoreland, Aug., 1890. 
— H. E. Fox. “The smaller specimen is tolerably typical C. alpina. 
The larger is different and may perhaps be referred to C. intermedia , 
but the specimen is a poor one, and the entire absence of fruit, and 
the very little flower on what was evidently a well-developed plant, is 
not satisfactory. C. intermedia was described by Ehrhart in ‘ Beitrage 
zur Naturkunde, 5 Vol. 4 (1789), and Mr. Fox’s citation of L. C. as 
the authority is everyway incorrect. If he intended to denote Watson 
in London Catalogue the abbreviated authority should read “ Wats., 55 
but as a matter of fact C. intermedia did not appear as a species in 
the London Catalogue, and if Mr. Watson was the authority for 
anything in the genus it was for the variety of C. lutetiana, variously 
named pseudo-intermedia (ed. vi.) and intermedia (ed. vij.)j but if as 
we think he did not describe the variety, these names are invalid. 
Ehrhart described C. intermedia as agreeing in size with C. lutetiana , 
but having the appearance of C. alpina , with which latter he thought 
it had been confused. The plant has by some been considered a 
hybrid, and the. most distinct-looking intermediate form which we 
have seen from this country, one collected by Mr. Hanbury, in com- 
pany with Prof. Trail, near Old Aberdeen, has this appearance, having 
a very weak flowering spike and a strong vegetative growth. Though 
hybrids may occasionally occur, most of the specimens we have seen 
appear to be, as Dr. Boswell regarded C. intermedia , merely luxuriant 
states of C. alpina .” — H. & J. Groves. 
