230 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES. 
deltoidea ? A set of this species, sent on the chance of its being what 
is required by the Club. The seeds are of two kinds, larger brown, 
and smaller black, both smooth and shining, the latter more numerous. 
Old gravel pit, Beckenham, Kent, September, 1888 . — Eyre de 
Crespigny. Deltoidea , Bab., with rather more hastate leaves than 
our Thames-side plant. — Ed. “Is A . deltoidea , Bab.” — Arthur 
Bennett. New record for Vice-county 16. 
Polygonum Aviculare , L., var. Brailsford, S. Derbyshire, October, 
1888. The noticeable points of this plant are its truncate perianth 
segments, projecting fruit, narrow leaves with revolute edges. — W. R. 
Linton. “Is arenastrum , Jord.” — J. G. Baker. 
P. mite , Schrank. Oxford, July, 1887. — G. C. Druce. 
P. maculatum , Dyer and Trim., var. incanum , Willd. and Sum., 
p.p. If not Willdenow’s plant, an uncommon form of maculatum. 
The under surfaces of the leaves are nearly white. On clay soil, 
overlying gravel border of a field and roadside, Beckenham, Kent. — 
Eyre de Crespigny. Willdenow’s incaiium is generally quoted as a 
variety of Persicaria , which is all that the above plant is. It has 
nothing to do with maculatum. — Ed. “Surely not maculatum .” — 
Arthur Bennett. 
P. maculatum , Dyer and Trim. Oxford, August, 1887. See 
‘ FI. Oxfd.,’ p. 256. — G. C. Druce. New County record. 
Rumex scutatus , L. Old walls, near Settle, Yorks., Co. 64, 30th 
June, 1888. — R. F. and F. P. Thompson. 
Urtica dioica, L. angustifolia , A. Blytt. Little Birch, Hereford- 
shire, 1 2th August, 1888. I wish to state that the plant sent under 
this name grew under rather abnormal conditions in a bushy ditch, 
where it was much shaded by other herbage. The leaves in plants 
apparently from same roots varied greatly in width, and in the length 
of their petioles, the latter, however being always abnormally long. — 
Augustin Ley. “ Yes,” J. G. Baker. Also from Tachbrook, 
Warwickshire, July, 1888. — H. Bromwich. The Warwick specimens 
are useless for critical discrimination, as the lower leaves are 
absent. In Decandolle’s ‘ Prodromus ’ Weddell gives under U. 
dioica , a var. angustifolia , Ledeb. FI. Alt., p. 240, 1829-1833, FI. 
Ross. 3, p. 637. “Caulibus elatis puberulis glabratisve saepius 
inermibus, foliis ovato vel oblongo-lanceolatis lanceolatisve basi 
acutis aut rotundatis grosse et argute serratis v. subincisis utrinque at 
praesertim subtus scabriusculo-hispidis rarissimeque stimulosis, peri- 
gonio fructifero hispidulo,” which was originally described as a species 
by Fischer, ex Hornemann Hort. reg. bot. Hafniensis, Supp. p. 107, 
1819. Ledebour simply describes it as “foliis oblongo lanceolatis” 
in FI. Ross., vol. iii., p. 637, 1846-51. Ledebour, therefore, has the 
prior claim to the use of the varietal name. In the ‘ Norge Flora,’ p. 
145, it is described as “uden Broeendhaar og med lange smale, 
lancetformede, ei ved grunden hjerle formede Blade,” with a reference 
to ‘ Vegetationsforholdene ved Sognefjorden, 1869.’ The Hereford 
specimens appear to belong to the var. atrovirens, Gren. et Godr., 
‘ FI. Fr.,’ vol. iii., p. 108. “ Feuilles ovales et meme suborbiculaires 
inferieurement, a dents plus profondes, a petiole plus long et presque 
