REPORT FOR 1 884. 
XI 3 
lucens .” This is generalising upon insufficient knowledge, and want 
of access to large series of the plants named. There is never any 
occasion to doubt as to which to refer a specimen to (natans or 
polygonifolius ) from any part of the world, if in fruit, and polygonifolius 
retains its characters equally from deep water ! as from shallow ; on 
this compare the remarks by Hooker and Arnott, British Flora, 8 ed., 
p. 484, the last paragraph, and Crepin “Notes sur quelques plantes 
rares ou critiques de la Belgique,” fas. i, p. 23. As to lucens and Zizii, 
I fear the reviewer would be puzzled with the series in my own collec- 
tion, as to where lucens , Zizii, heterophyllus , and nitens ended and 
began. 
Potamogeton plantagineus , Du Croz. Between Acle and Halv'er- 
gate, by Yarmouth, E. Norfolk, June, 1884. — Arthur Bennett. 
New station for the species, which is quite rare in the country on 
present records. 
Potamogeton decipiens , Nolte. (sub.-sp.) Canal, near Alford, below 
Guildford, Surrey, 26th Aug., 1884. — Arthur Bennett. In 1883, 
Mr. Beeby brought a scrap from the canal which was thought might 
be decipiens , and in August last he kindly showed me the station, 
when all doubt about it ceased; it occurs among P. lucens and P crispus. 
This is made a sub-species of lucens in “The Students’ Flora,” 3 ed., 
(by me) ; some curious facts have been communicated to me by Mr. 
Fryer with respect to its relations to lucens and Zizii, but they are not 
yet worked out ; and I hope he will endeavour to study them this 
summer. Ascherson “ Flora of Brandenburg ” considers it a hybrid 
between prcelongus x lucens ? Hartman’s “ Handbok i Skand. Flora,” 
II ed., while retaining Nolte’s name suggests the same; while 
Marsson “Flora v. Neu-vorpommern und Riigen” suggests lucens x 
perfoliatus. Nolte does not notice the plant in his “Nov. Flor. 
Holsaticae,” not having then met with it I suppose. As to its being a 
hybrid I can only say there is no trace of prcelongus in the canal, 
though perfoliatus may be there, but I did not notice it. Dr. Tiselius 
in an able paper in the “ Botaniska Notiser,” contends that decipiens , 
Nolte, salicifolius , Wolfgang, Upsalensis , Tiselius, and nitens , Weber, 
are referable to one aggregate species. 
Potamogeton Zizii , M. et K. Cambridgeshire. — A. Fryer. A large 
number of good specimens of this debatable plant. In the “ Bulletin 
de laSociete Linneenne de Normandie,” 1885, (for this I am indebted to 
Mr. Charles Bailey’s kindness), M. Corbiere contends that P. Zizii is a 
distinct species from heterophyllus and lucens , using his own words he 
says— “ En un mot, je crois que le Potamogeton Zizii est une espece 
de valeur egale a celle de P. rufescens, par exemple, et plus ou moins 
affine, dans le cycle assez restreint des formes oil elle se meut, aux 
Pot. heterophyllus , Schreb., rufescens , Schrad, et lucens, L.” The 
reference to P rufescens is remarkable, and (for while it certainly is 
the case that British botanists have referred Zizii to rufescens , and M. 
Corbiere elsewhere in his “ Note ” seems to imply some affinity with 
rufescens?) still two species more distinct could scarcely be found, 
their mode of growth, habit, and especially fruit are totally unlike one 
another. Were it not for forestalling the memoir of my friend, Dr. 
Tiselius, I should like to “break a lance” with M. Corbiere on the 
