1 8 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES. 
and adds : “ It is M. gentilis of Smith, Eng. Bot., ed. i., but not M. 
gentilis of E. B., ed. iii. I had the plant in a fresh state, sent me by 
Mr. Bromwich.” 
Calamintha menthifolia , Host. b. Briggsii. Mr. H. Bromwich 
sends a plant so named from Hatton, Warwickshire, September, 1878. 
Prof. Babington writes : “ Not Briggsii , according to my idea ; but 
goes to the typical form of C. officinalis = mentifolia of Lindlat.” Mr. 
Baker and Dr. Boswell accept it as Briggsii. 
Nepeta Glechoma , Benth., b. parviflora , Benth. From the bank 
of the canal at Leamington, 4th June, 1879. M r - Baker says “ this 
is a long-styled form with short stamens ; like Thymus and Calamintha , 
it is more or less dimorphic.” 
Utricular ia neglecta , Lehm. Mr. F. J. Han bury sends a supply 
from dykes in Ham Ponds, Kent, June, 1878. Dr. Boswell says 
that these specimens show that Reichenbach’s character of the leaves 
not being bristly is erroneous. 
Rumex crispus , L., b. elongatus. Sent by Rev. Augustin Ley 
from tidal banks, Tinterne, Monmouthshire, 13th September, 1879. 
Rumex, hybrid between pulcher and conglomeratus ? Sent by Mr. 
T. R. Archer Briggs, thus named, from road-side, Swilly, near 
Plymouth, South Devon, 4th August, 1879. Dr. Boswell says : “ This 
seems the same as a plant which I raised from Mr. Briggs’s seed, and 
which I have cultivated for many years at Balmuto, where very few 
fruits ripen. Among the plants raised from the seed of the original 
specimen there are considerable differences, some of them inclining 
towards pulcher, and some of them towards congloineratus. I have no 
doubt about its being a hybrid between these two.” 
Rwnex, hybrid between conglomeratus and pulcher, from Lewes, 
Sussex, September, 1879. Sent by Mr. J. H. A. Jenner, with the 
note that “ the Hon. J. L. Warren confirms my naming. Both pulcher 
and conglomeratus grew on the spot. I could get no root leaves.” 
Dr. Boswell believes this is “ rightly named, though it is nearer 
pulcher than any of my seedlings from the Devon plant.” Mr. T. R. 
Archer Briggs says that, “ had not Mr. Warren confirmed the naming, 
I might have been disposed to suspect the specimen to be only 
depauperized pulcher, especially as the branches have sprung, late in 
the season, from a stem previously cut or broken off. It is much 
more like pulcher than Plymouth examples from Swilly, presumed to 
be hybrids between conglomeratus and this species.” 
Polygonum aviculare, L., d. microspermum, Jord. Sent by Mr. 
A. Bennett, from Mitcham Common, near Croydon, Surrey, Sep 
tember, 1879, “ for Dr. Boswell’s opinion, as it seems the 3rd Ed. 
Eng. Bot. plant may not be the true plant of Jordan.” Dr. Boswell 
would certainly give it this name. 
Polygonum aviculare, L., e. rurivagum, Jord. Mr. W. H. Beeby 
sends a very dwarf form of this variety from Earlswood Common, 
Surrey, 14th September, 1879, with the note that he “at first sup- 
posed this to be microspermum ; but Mr. Watson considers it to be 
probably a starved state of rurivagum. It is abundant on Earlswood 
Common and Reigate Heath, and in appearance differs from ruri- 
vagum in its dwarf and prostrate habit.” Upon this plant Dr. Boswell 
writes : “ I think this should rather be called var. humifusum, Jord. 
