354 the botanical exchange club of the British isles. 
our Arabis petrcea does not occur. It is true he refers to the plate in 
‘ Hortus Elthamensis,’ which is not particularly satisfactory, although 
it undoubtedly does duty for the Welsh form, of Arabis petraa, /.<?., 
the hispid plant, but which is not identical on the one hand with the 
Ben Laoigh plant, nor on the other with l^innceus’ specimen of 
Cardafuine petrcea in his herbarium. Later on I hope to examine and 
report on Lamarck’s plant if specimens still exist in his herbarium. 
With reference to the remark that Sir Jos. Hooker in ‘Island Life’ 
says, “ It is a form only distinguished by its larger flowers,” quoted in 
the ‘Report’ for 1891 by the Editor, as it stands without the context, 
is I think a little misleading. It may be well to quote two or 
three remarks from ‘Island Life,’ which show in what manner the word 
“form” is there employed. It is stated that Rubus echinatus is 
a variety of the widely spread R. Radu/a, itself a form of R. fruticosus. 
CEnanthe fluviatilisvs, the fluitant form of (E. PhellandriumA [The two 
plants are to me absolutely distinct. — G. C. D.] With regard to the new 
Hieracia Sir J. L). Hooker and Mr. J. Gilbert Baker say, “No case 
can be made of these. They are local forms with the shadowest of 
shady characters.” In the same work Arabis petrcza, var. grandifolia 
is included among the 16 endemic varieties which Britain yields. 
From the leaf characters and the size of the flowers I think it may be 
described as distinct from A. petrcea as A. grandifolia. Should there 
already be a plant so named I would suggest the name of Arabis 
scotica. It may be known from A. petrcea by its broadly ovate nearly 
entire dark green leaves, thickly covered with bifid and trifid hairs, 
and by its flowers which are twice the size of ordinary A. petrcea . — 
G. C. Druce. 
Cardafuine Jlexuosa, With, forma. Heyford, Oxon, May, 1885. 
With larger flowers than usual. — G. C. Druce. “ I don’t think the 
Cardamine is more than flexuosa. The leaves of your specimen 
show no approach to C. pratensisP — E. F. Linton. “ A distinctive 
name for larger petalled forms seems scarcely justified.” — W. R. 
Linton. 
Cochlearia anglica, L. var. Hortii, Syme. Southport, April, 
1892. — J. A. Wheldon. Mr. N. E. Brown considers this to be the 
type of C. anglica., L. Messrs. Groves say Syme and Watson gave two 
varietals names when a species was represented by two equally 
common forms. — G. C. Druce. 
Sisymbrium pannonicufn, Jacq. On waste ground, Foss Island, 
York, Aug., 1889. — J. A. Wheldon. A single specimen. In the 
‘ Supplement’ to E. B., p. 22, Mr. N. E. Brown refers S. pannonicum 
to S. altissimufii of the “ Sp. PI.’, Ed. i. j 659. Ritter von Beck, in 
‘ FI Nied. 6st.’, queries its identity with that plant and says “ It is 
not the plant of the Linnsean Herbarium,” which is .S. orientale., L. 
The name S. pafinonicum, is undoubtedly antedated by that of 5 . 
Sinapistrum, Crantz, ‘Stirp. Aust.’ 1769. — G. C. Druce. 
Sisymbrium . Waste ground near the railway, Milverton, 
Warwickshire, August, 1892. — H. Bromwich. Two very defective 
specimens which were named Erysimum repandfcm, L. by a referee, 
but the stem clothed with patent hairs, the upper leaves cut into long 
