REPORT FOR 1 882. 
77 
Salix repens. Ranworth, Norfolk, E. The marshes of this interest- 
ing Broad abound in lowland Salices. I send some forms of S. repens. 
The capsule in every case is silky, more or less ; therefore (according 
to Hooker) none are repens proper. No. i, with leaves appearing 
after the flowers, faintly serrate, tip fairly straight, comes near S. 
prostrata ; but the stem was rather decumbent or ascending. The 
leaves of No. 2 also appear after the flowers, but they are rather long 
and narrow, and have the tip curved. No. 3, having leaves appearing 
with the flowers, slightly serrate, tip generally re-curved, stem decum- 
bent, I have ventured to call S. ascendens , Sm. No. 4 is like the last, 
but having a more prostrate growth, may be S. parvifolia , Sm. I 
believe S. fnsca , L., was growing in the same marsh, but I have no 
specimens to send. On a dry heath within a few miles S. argentea , 
Sm., was in fair quantity.— E. E. Linton. On the above forms the 
Rev. J. E. Leefe writes : — “ No. 1. I should call S. repens, L., Koch. 
No. 2. Not unlike, as to leaves, to Salict. Brit., No. 88, named 
ascendens by Mr. Ward. I should myself be content to call it S. 
repens , L. (non Smith), as I think the different forms are best arranged 
under one species, as Mr. Borrer consented to do. See Hook., Brit. 
FI., Ed. 4, p. 361. No. 3. S. repens, L. var. As a segregate it seems 
most like S. argentea , Sm. No. 4. The only parvifolia known to me 
is the male, the plant of Eng. Botany, and of Forbes, which is 
remarkably devoid of the silky pubescence on the underside of the 
leaf characteristic of the tribe. Mr. Linton’s plant agrees in its 
narrow elliptical leaves. Smith’s plant is said to have a very strong 
fishy smell when shut up in a small box — hence the name fcetida , of 
which parvifolia is a variety.” 
Lenina minor, Linn. Tankerness, Orkney, March, 1882; collected 
by W. Cowan. The only known station. Reported as occurring in 
“ ditches,” by Dr. Gilbert Maccrab, certainly a mistake ; and marked 
“extremely doubtful” by Robert Heddle and Dr. Duguid in their 
MS. list. Possibly introduced. — W. Irvine Fortescue. 
Potainogeton lanceolatus, Smith! “Cultivated from specimens 
gathered in Burwell Fen, Cambridgeshire, r88o, A. Bennett.” I 
send specimens for all the members. The question of the distribution 
of P. lanceolatus, as a species, may now be considered fairly settled, 
in all essential characters (especially in the fruit), it differs from all 
known species. Confined (at present) to the British Isles, I believe 
we have here a strictly endemic species ; and I venture to think that 
few, if any, endemic species have been subjected to so crucial a test 
as this. Enquiries in all quarters of the world, accompanied by 
specimens, have failed to elicit any answers contradictory to the 
above assertion. The only specimens that approach it, even in 
appearance, are those named “ lanceolatus, Sm.,” by Nolte, from 
Holstein and Laneuberg ; these by the kindness of Herr R. von 
Uechtritz, of Breslau, I have been enabled to examine at my 
leisure, and I refer them to heteroplyllus. Since my paper in the 
“Journal of Botany” (1881, p. 65-67) I have received specimens 
named as Smith’s plant from Prof. Lange, of Copenhagen (Denmark), 
and M. C. J. de Maximowicz, of St. Petersburg (Lithuania-Gorski), 
and T do not hesitate to refer them to P. rufescens , Schrad. Its 
distribution in Britain is certainly peculiar, but it may have been 
