REPORT FOR 1899. 
605 
by Moench (‘ Methodus/ 1794) for a different plant.” — H. and J. 
Groves. “ Assuming P. rotundifolia^ ‘ Lond. Cat.,’ ed. 9, i.e. P. 
latifolia^ Syme, to be Aria x tor?ninalis, the present plant would appear 
to have more Aria and less torminalis in it.”— E. F. Linton. 
Pyriis ^^scandica”} Planted trees, Warslow, N. Staffs., 27th Sept. 
1899. This is the ordinary planted tree passing under this name, 
which is surely different both from the Cefn Coed plant I send and 
from the Arran scafidicai’’ The fruit here is large, oblong, deep 
yellow-red when fresh. — -A. Lev. “Yes, the usual cultivated plant; 
fruit perhaps larger than in the wild tree.” — ^E. F. and W. R. L. 
P. scandica} Limestone cliff near Cefn Coed, Breconshire, 6th 
June 1899. Of this plant Professor Koene writes This plant I 
believe to be typical Aria succisa, Koene.” See ‘ Journ. Bot.,’ 1897, 
p. 99. The fruit (which I succeded in gathering in 1897) is in this 
plant small, roundish, much resembling that of P. minwia, but much 
less brightly coloured. Some fifteen to twenty shrubs of this plant exist 
on the cliff, but most are quite inaccessible. — A. Ley. “ Matches 
well with the Arran scandicaT — E. F. Linton. 
P. minima^ Ley. Craig Cille, Breconshire, 5th June 1899. A few 
specimens of flower, and fruit (19th August 1896), sent. — A. Ley. 
Crafcegtis, sp. Yeldersley, S. Derbyshire, i6th September 1899. 
I suppose a cutleaved form of C. monogyna, Jacq.— W. R. Linton. 
“These specimens sent to me are without flower or fruit. But as the 
leaf characters afford the safer character by which one can separate 
C. monogytia from C. Oxyacanthoides, one may confidently refer these 
specimens to C. mojiogyna. I have already pointed out in ‘Ann. Scot. 
Nat. Hist.,’ 1899, pp. 185-6, that I think it will be best to keep as 
distinct species the two plants described under the above names. C. 
monogyfia is really the C. Oxyacantha of the Linniean Herbarium, and 
this we might have expected when we consider the distribution of the 
two plants ; in fact, I predicted this would be the case before I had 
the opportunity of consulting the Linniean Herbarium. True C. 
Oxyacantha is best differentiated from forms of C. oxyacanthoides by 
the nervature of the lower lobes of the leaves being recurved, whereas 
C. oxyacanthoides has them curved inwards. This is pointed out by 
Boreau in the ‘Flore du Centre de la France,’ vol. ii., p. 234 (1857), 
and specially clearly by Willkomm in ‘ Forstliche Flora,’ pp. 611-612. 
The number of styles in the two species is too varying to admit of its 
being used with certainty, although a very large number of individuals 
of true C. Oxyacantha have only one style; still, plants having 1-2 
are not unfrequent. The distribution of C. Oxyacantha is much wider 
than that of C. oxyacanthoides, which appears to be very rare in 
Scotland; indeed, I have as yet seen no typical specimens from north 
of the Border. Naturally, almost all, if not all, of the laciniate forms 
will come under C. Oxyacantha {mo?iog)!?ia), and this specimen of the 
Rev. W. R. Linton’s should apparently be called var. laciniata. I have 
