REPORT FOR 1889. 
279 
plant as that referred to R. serpens Weihe. by Dr. Focke (see Report 
1887, p. 177). I say this with great confidence, after studying it in 
its native haunt. The specimens sent in 1888 were, however, finer 
and better grown than those of 1887. I have this year (1889) traced 
it a mile or two further south, in Chepstow Park Wood, Monmouth- 
shire. — Augustin Ley. 
Euphrasia officinalis , Linn. Mr. F. Townsend reports that the 
var. from Reay, Caithness, J. C. Melvill, is E. Roslkoviana , Hayne. 
Mr. Linton’s specimens from Yeldersley, S. Derbyshire, Mr. Townsend 
names E. nemorosa , H. Mart.— G. C. Druce. 
Mentha pubescens , Willd. To the Exchange Club distribution of 
1886 I contributed numerous specimens of a mint grown in my 
garden from roots sent me by Mr. Curnow, of Cornwall, and to a 
specimen of which Mr. J. G. Baker had assented as to its name as 
representing the plant he described in the Journal of Botany for 1865, 
p. 242. On those specimens sent to the Club the Abbe C. A. Strail 
has commented in the Report issued in 1887, P- 187, and there says : 
“ If I had found your mint in Belgium, I should certainly have given 
it another name, and should have placed it close to M. nepetoides , 
Lej.” Mr. Baker says his plant is “ ?iepetoides Koch, Fries,” if so, it 
must be of Lejeune as Koch (Syn. FI. Germ et Helv. ed. 2, p. 633), 
gives it as the plant of the “ Flore de Spa, p. 116.” Mr. Baker goes 
on to say that his own is exactly the pubescens of Willdenow ; but I 
do not know on what he relies for this, as by the kindness of Dr. 
Schumann I have before me all the specimens of M. aquatica and 
M. hirsuta from the General and Willdenow Herbaria at Berlin, and 
there is no specimen in the collection subscribed to by Willdenow 
himself. Of the three sheets of Willdenow’s collection No. 1 is a long 
petioled form of an ordinary aquatica as it grows in marshes. No. 2 
is nearly the same, but paler in foliage. No. 3 is the less hairy form, 
with the upper leaves sub-petiolate smaller, and more pointed, darker 
in colour, calyx teeth shorter; usually a plant of more exposed 
situations than 1 and 2. Dr. Schumann thinks this latter to be the 
type of Willdenow’s “ hirsutaP Whether so, or not, it is perhaps 
now impossible to prove, but it is not the plant we name pubescens 
for certain ! Our plant is contained in the collection under the name 
of “ M. pubescens, W irtgen,” and again as “ M. pubescens, W. Reich. 
FI. G. n. 2090. Icon. pi. crit. 1309,” from Wirtgen. Some one has 
written on the sheet 11 M. nepetoides , Lej.” A sheet labelled “ M. 
hirsuta, Wilmersdorf, Berlin, August, 1832, ex herb. Kunth,” is also 
labelled “ M. aq. latifolia cordaia minor S. Lantzius Benings.” Of 
this latter we have an exact counterpart in a plant I gathered on 
Mitcham Common, Surrey, but it is not the pubescens, Auct. Angl. 
I can come to no other conclusion than this, that M. pubescens, Willd. 
is merely a slight variety of the plant we name aquatica, and that the 
M. pubescens, Baker, is probably as Strail suggests the M. nepetoides , 
Lejeune, but I have seen no specimen from Lejeune. — Arthur 
Bennett. 
