REPORT FOR 1 884. 
Ill 
Sparganium affine , Schneiz. Glen Canlochan, Forfar, 18th Aug, 
1884. Found in a minature tarn, at an elevation of about 2,700ft. or 
more ; growing in some quantity, without any sign of flower or fruit. 
The naming therefore rests on probability. Specimens of S. affine in 
good fruit, were also gathered by us near Uig, Skye, a fortnight 
previously, making an addition to the flora of V. C. 104. — E. F. and 
W. R. Linton. “ I cannot name this without flowers or fruit, but 
from the texture of the leaves, should incline to simplex .” — W. H. 
Beeby. 
Sparganium minimum , Fr. Newham Lough, Northumberland. 
Not recorded in Top. Botany for the county, but see Baker and Tait, 
pp. 267, 268 (in FI. of North, and Durham). — H. E. Fox. “I have 
some doubts of this.” — W. H. Beeby. 
Potamogeton fluitans , Roth. Mr. Fryer sends a single specimen 
from some pits in the neighbourhood of Ramsey, Hunts (Co. 31), 
accompanied by a living specimen ; this up to date (June, 1885,) 
shows no signs of flowering with me, but seems quite identical with 
specimens growing with it from the Loire, France (M. J. Lloyd of 
Nantes). This is a plants that has often been reported as British, and 
as often contradicted, forms of polygon iff l ius, rufescens , and Zizii 
having been mistaken for it. There seems no reason to doubt Mr. 
Fryer’s specimens being the true plant, they agree well with specimens 
in the Berlin Herbarium determined by Nolte and Chamisso, and 
with others in my own collection from the herbarium of the late Al. 
Braun.* I am in hopes that Mr. Fryer’s specimens will fruit with 
him this year, when its identity will be made quite certain. Indeed, 
the observations of my acute friend almost make me feel sure; i.e., 
“ its habit of growth is quite different from P. natans , which grows in 
the same pit; of that, roots come up freely, of this, the roots strike 
deep into the mud. All the submerged leaves are alike, down to the 
very bottom, linear-lanceolate. I can see its distinctiveness from 
deep water forms of polygonifolius better now I have had a second 
look at it growing.” There is one thing Mr. Fryer’s specimens show, 
i.e., that the non-branching of natans, fluitans, and polygonifolius has 
exceptions, and in this I am supported by the opinion of my friend, 
Rev. T. Morony, of Mass., U.S.A., who writes that “while the rule 
here, there are exceptions.” I give a few synonyms and its points of 
difference from natans , &c., preferring, however to do this, to a merely 
technical description, as that conveys little information to our field- 
botanists ; of course in Floras this would be out of place, but in our 
Report it seems to me we want this sort of matter rather than dry 
details. 
Potamogeton fluitans, Roth., in “FI. Germ.” 1, p. 72, 2, p. 202, 
not of Hooker, Lon., Smith! De C. ! Besser ! Michx. ! Potamogeton 
natans, b. fluviaiilis , Schlecht FI. Berol! ex sp. in Herb. Berlin! 
Potamogeton natans, b. flluitans , Cham., in Ad. FI. Berol, p. 4 ! 
Potamogeton natans , c. angustatus, M. et. K., 1 p. 838. From the 
usual state of natans it differs in the upper leaves, being gradually 
tapered into the petiole, the midrib of much thicker consistence, the 
For these I am indebted to the kindness of Dr. Eichler, Director of the Konigl. Bot. Museum 
at Berlin, and its courteous custodian, Dr. Schumann. 
