REPORT FOR 1 893. 
401 
abridged. Attention being drawn to the above plants will, at any 
rate, assist us to form an opinion as to the distinctness of the two 
forms, and to their distribution in the British Isles. — G. Claridge 
Druce. 
Cochlearia. A dwarf microphylline form, abundant about Walton 
Gaol, Lancs., April and October, 1893. — J. A. Wheldon. I suppose 
this is only a small state of C. officinalis , although many of the stem 
leaves are stalked, and all the parts of the plant are so minute. It 
would be desirable to cultivate it, as perhaps its peculiarities are due 
to the habitat. The shape of the leaves and of the fruit seems to 
vary greatly in this and the allied species or forms, and perhaps 
Boswell’s plan of uniting officinalis , alpina and danica under the single 
species polymorpha was the most satisfactory. — J. G. 
Cochlearia . Garden, Milford, 9th May, 1893. This is the 
plant (from Ben Lawers) for which the name C. arclica, Fries, 
has been suggested ; but it does not agree with specimens from 
Th. M. Fries in herb. Brit. Mus. I have cultivated this since 
r 8S 7, and found it very constant, also coming true from seed. 
Though nearly allied to C. alpina , Watson, and C. danica , L., it 
keeps distinct from both, and is remarkable in early spring for 
its compact habit, due to the crowded root-leaves, which often 
form (in cultivation) a dense cushion, four or five inches across. 
I regret being able to send so few specimens. — E. S. Marshall. 
I have omitted Mr. Marshall’s ms. name for this plant from the 
Report, as I will not be an accessory to the mischievous practice of 
publishing names without any valid descriptions. It may be allowable 
to give provisional ms. names to plants in one’s own herbarium, but 
the issue of plants so labelled, and, much more, the publication of the 
names, is extremely undesirable, as tending to increase the difficulties of 
working out synonymy already rendered needlessly complicated 
by the number of ill-considered ‘new species’ with more or less 
unsatisfactory descriptions. If a plant is sufficiently distinct to be 
named, it is certainly worth describing, and indeed figuring as 
well, and, if the discriminator is uncertain on the point, it is far 
better to refer to the plant by describing its supposed peculiari- 
ties than to add another to the vast limbo of still-born species. If 
Mr. Marshall is anxious to put in a claim for specific rank for his 
Cochlearia before he has investigated sufficiently to describe it, it 
would be less harmful to refer to it as “ sp. nov.,” or better, “ sp. 
nov.?”— J. G.* 
Sisymbrium officinale , Scop. var. leiocarpum , DC. Wilmington 
24th June), and Plumstead Marshes (9th July, 1893), West Kent. 
Lane near Willaston, Cheshire, 1st August, 1893. I have noticed 
this variety in a good many places usually easily recognisable by its 
green, not greyish, pods, but it is usually in single specimens. At 
Willaston, however, the lane was full of it, and I did not see any of 
the type. It seems hardly worth varietal distinction. — A. H. Wolley 
* Since this note has been in type, Mr. Marshall has described and figured the 
plant (‘ Journ. Bot.,’ Oct., 1894, p. 289, t. 345-6,) under a fresh name C. micacea. 
-J. G. 
