REPORT FOR 1885. 
r 35 
those of the type, and the scales much larger, indeed fully as long as 
those of vitellina , from which, however, it differs considerably, con- 
spicuously in the different hue of the bark and leaves. — R. F. 
Towndrow. — “ A remarkable form of S. alba. It is a great pity that 
we have not the advantage of Mr. Leefe’s opinion on this and the other 
willows.” — J. G. 
Salix triandra , Sm., var. Hojfmanniana. Banks of the Learn, 
Radford, Warwicks., May and Sept., 1885. — H. Bromwich. Elstree, 
Middlesex, May and July, 1885. — W. R. Linton. “I think Mr. 
Bromwich’s plant is correctly named, but the leaves of Mr. Linton’s 
are too long and slender for Hojfmanniana .” — J. G. 
S. ferruginea , Anders.? Burstow, Surrey, Nov., 1884, April and 
Sep., 1885. All from same tree. Mr. Baker and Dr. Fraser con- 
sidered this probably rightly named on seeing the leaves only. I have 
since obtained catkins. The stamens are hairy below, but the 
nectary is, I think, that of vimen . — W. H. Beeby. “I should 
name it S. cinereal ’ — J. G. 
S. Croweana, Sm., Cult. Sprowston, E. Norfolk, Sept. 1885. — 
E. F. Linton. 
S. phylicifolia , L. var. Glen Shee, E. Perth, August, 1884. Ben 
Bulben, Sligo, August, 1885. — E. F. Linton. 
S. nigricans , Sm., var. Andersoniana. Glen Phee, Clova, Forfar, 
August, 1884. — W. R. Linton. 
S. repens , L. vars. Roundstone, Galway, W., August, 12, 1885. 
A better place for the study of this variable Willow could hardly be 
found than Roundstone, and especially Dog’s Bay, two miles west. 
The Rev. W. R. Linton and myself found good S. incubacea , L. here, 
and another form like it, but with the stipules not so definitely 
stalked. — E. F. Linton. 
S. Hippopha'efolia , Thuill .,fide Leefe et Boswell. Bilbrook, near 
Wolverhampton, April and Aug., 1884. — J. Fraser. Ross, Here- 
fordshire, April and June, 1882. — A. Ley. “I do not understand S. 
Hippopha'efolia , but if, as many authors suppose, it is a hybrid between 
S. viminalis and S. triandra , there is probably a range of forms, and 
this may account for the difference between Dr. Fraser’s and Mr. 
Ley’s specimens.” — J. G. 
Sparganium neglectum , mihi. From various stations in Surrey. I 
send with each specimen a packet of ripe fruit of this and of S. 
ramosum , Curtis, for comparison. It is very much to be desired that 
the other species of this genus should more often be collected in ripe 
fruit — especially floating forms from the extreme north. — W. H. 
Beeby. 
Fotamogeton polygonifolius , Pourr., var. Loch of Boardhouse, 
Birsay, Orkney, July and Sept., 1885. H. H. Johnston and W. I. 
Fortescue. “ I have little doubt that this has been seen by Dr. 
Boswell, yet I cannot but say I should place it under natans in the 
absence of fruit to decide its position.” — A. Bennett. 
P. polygonifolius , Pourret, var. augustifolius , Fries. This is a well- 
marked variety named for me by Mr. Arthur Bennett. It occurred in 
a peaty pool at the foot of Stob-Dearg, in Glen Etive, Argyle (Co. 98), 
at an altitude of 800 feet, not far from the stables near Kingshouse, 
