190 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES. 
Ashton specimens approaching S. velutina (Schrad.). The latter 
three would, I dare say, be called S. rugosa, Leefe, which is often 
near, and sometimes inseparable from, S. velutina^ and is probably a 
hybrid with S. cinerea^ the more typical sericans being a hybrid with 
A. Caprea. S. fer 7 'iigi?iea, as I understand it, is a very different plant 
from the Long Ashton one. Various very different-looking plants 
have been named ferruginea. Apropos of some of the specimens, I 
may say that in collecting willows, leaf-specimens should be taken 
not only from the stronger growing shoots, but from the smaller side 
twigs, which frequently shew more typical leaves.” — F. Buchanan 
White. 
Salix Croweana^ Sm. Cultivated, Sprowston, Norfolk, loth May 
and 28th September, 1887. — E. F. Linton. “Not S. Croweana, Sm., 
which is a monstrosity. The stamens do not seem to be connate ; 
but connation, when it does not extend above the very base, is not 
easy to see in dried specimens. I would call this S. phylicifolia^ L. 
(A. hicolor^ Ehrh.). The varieties of S. phylicifolia and of S. nigricans 
are of no value, and should be dropped from our list. This remark 
applies to the next below.” — F. Buchanan White. 
A. Botreriana^ Sm. Braemar, S. Aberdeen, 5th August, 1,887. — 
W. R. Linton. “Not A. Borreriana, Not unlike A. teniiifolia^ Sm., 
as sent by Borrer to Leefe (Sal. Exs. hi., No. 68), but which does not 
altogether agree with the description of A. taiuifoliar — F. Buchanan 
White. 
A. repens^ L., var. h. fusca, L. Heath at Honiley, Warwickshire, 
April and August, 1887. — H. Bromwich. 
A. Lapponiini^ L., var. b. Stuariiana, Sm. Corrie, Ceanmor, S. 
Aberdeenshire, 4th August, 1887. — W. R.. Linton. 
A. Arlmscula^ L. Ben Laoigh, Mid-Perth, 1,500 to 2,000 ft., 
17th August, 1887. This appears to come nearest to the var. tenui- 
folia. — H. AND J. Groves. 
A. Afyrsiniies, L., var. serrata, Syme. Corrie, Ceanmor, S. 
Aberdeenshire, 4th August, 1887. — W. R. Linton. 
Ceratophylluin aquaiicuin^ “ Wats, in Lond. Cat., ed. iii.” Syme, 
E. B., ed. iii., vol. VIII., pi. 1266-7. This is the form I recorded 
as C. apiculatum^ Chamisso, in ‘Journal of Botany,’ vol. 25, p. 282. 
The specimens on which I founded that record had no spines at the 
base, but two minute tubercles in their place. Afterwards, on gathering 
a large series of examples, I found, on the same branch, fruits with 
(i) no spines at the base, (2) with two tubercles, (3) with one spine, 
(4) with two spines, and (5) with a winged spine. As all these 
varieties in the fruit occurred in apparently full grown examples, and 
as the absence of spines seemed in no wise to depend upon the 
maturity of the fruit, I am induced to believe that our fenland plant 
is better placed under Mr. W^atson’s aggregate C. aquaticum. Possibly 
all Chamisso’s “species,” or “sub-species,” have no substantial 
existence in nature, but may be, like our fenland varieties, states of 
one plant. Professor Babington names our fenland plant C. deinej'siim^ 
L., a name which may fairly be given to its usual state ; but, looking 
at habit and foliage alone, we certainly have a plant that is well described 
