268 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES. 
Blytt gives “b. holosericea, Hartm.” with a ? under angustifolia ; 
Hartmann says “ holosericea , Fries so they probably mean the 
same plant. Your specimen seems to me to hold a sort of middle 
place between b. microphylla , Haussmann, and Fries’ plant; but 
nearer the latter.” — E. F. Linton. 
Urtica dioica , Linn, var .microphylla, Hauss. Stone-work by canal 
side, Oxford, September, 1889. See Report for 1888, p. 231. — 
G. Claridge Druce. 
Salix viridis , Fr. $ Malvern Link, Worcestershire, May and 
August, 1889. — R. F. Towndrow. “A good intermediate con- 
dition.” — F Buchanan White. 
S. viridis, Fr. 2 Malvern Link, Worcestershire, May and August, 
1889. — R. F. Towndrow. “ Another form nearly intermediate, but 
leaning a little towards S. fragilisP — F. Buchanan White. 
S. undulata , Ehrh. teste Dr. F. Buchanan White. Osier bed, the 
Serpentine, Biddulph, N. Staffs., May and September, 1889. — W. H. 
Painter. 
S. — — . From an apparently very old tree, overhanging a pond, 
at Sapcote, Leicestershire. A hard winter has since killed it. August, 
1887 . — Elizabeth Lomax. “ S. purpurea , L. f. styligera , Wimm. 
It differs from the type only in the subacute ovaries with the stigmas 
seated on short styles, instead of being sessile. These specimens 
agree with Austrian examples so named.” — F. Buchanan White. 
S. purpurea , Linn. var. Lambertiana , Sm. Berrow, North Somerset, 
April and August, 1888. — J. W. White. “ S. rubra , Huds. Under 
Hudson’s name all the forms assumed by the hybrid between 
A. purpurea and S. viminalis must be included. This form is 
S. Forbyana, Sm., and from its greater affinity with S. purpurea than 
with S. viminalis is called purpureoides by Grenier and Godron. The 
purpurea - like states of the hybrid seem to be much rarer than the 
more intermediate condition, and are not infrequently mistaken for 
varieties of S. pur pur eaP — F. Buchanan White.. 
S. SmithianapNiWdi. (S. rugosa , Leefe.) The Serpentine, Biddulph, 
N. Staffs., May and Sept, 1889. — W. H. Painter. “ May be best 
placed under S. Smithiana , W., b. sericans , (Tausch) though it is a 
little aberrant. S. rugosa , Leefe, is on the whole nearer c. velutma , 
(Schrad.), but various forms of Smithiana have been called S. 
rugosa .” — F. Buchanan White. 
S. cinereal ., f. androgyna , and £ gynandra. Holme Fen, Hunts, 
14th May, 1888. I send further specimens of this gathering of 
these two curious forms, as Dr. White threw doubt on the species , 
when the Rev. W. R. Linton sent specimens (from the same two 
bushes) a year ago (Report, p. 232.) I am at a loss to understand 
how the referee failed to recognize such obvious S. cinerea; the 
specimens represent a typical form of the plant. Mature leaves can 
scarcely be required to settle the species. The specimens were sent 
to illustrate a curious development of the flower, possibly a reversion 
to an earlier condition of existence ; and the words androgyna and 
gynandra are not names, but descriptive terms, employed very 
appropriately by our continental confreres to denote (1) staminate 
