REPORT FOR 1 892, 
379 
recorded as A. lUtoralis from Munlochy, in the Black Isle of 
Cromarty, in “Rep. of Rec. Club,” i88i, p. 193. The same form as 
above is figured in ‘ E. B.’ No, 2305, as E. littoralis from the Elgin 
coast. — G. C. Druce. 
Gentiana germanica^ Willd. Letcombe Castle, Berkshire, Septem- 
ber, 1892. — G. C. Druce. “Yes.” — Arthur Bennett. It grew in great 
profusion over a limited area with G. Amarella, and with a few plants 
of what I believe to be a hybrid, i.e. G. Amarella x ger?nanica, 
= X ( 9 . Pamplinii. In this locality a good deal of G. Amarella 
continued in flower with G. germanica ; usually it is an earlier 
flowering plant. The obconical tube of the flower of G. germanica 
fully distinguishes it from the nearly cylindric tube of G. Amarella. 
The hybrid was certainly somewhat intermediate in character, but I 
have sent it to Dr. Wettstein. — G. C. Druce. 
Cynoglossum officinale.^ L. Var. subglabrum, Syme. Sandhills, 
Southport, July, 1892. Specimens sent are side branches and radical 
leaves of a very large plant, which was much less downy than our 
usual form, and entirely devoid of the usual mousy odour. I only 
found this one specimen which was much too large to dry entire. — 
J. A. Wheldon. “ Very poor, but seemed what Syme meant by the 
var.”^ — Arthur Bennett. The varietal name should be cited Bromfield 
in ‘Phytol.’ p. 571 — 1849 (not Syme) as he there reduces Herat’s 
C. subglabrum to a variety of C. officinale-, he says “it is merely a 
slight variety of the hound’s tongue, and in some specimens hardly 
to be distinguished from the common form.” — G. C. Druce, 
C. montamnn, Lam. Wychwood, Oxon, January, 1885. In the 
absence of the flowers the swollen bases of the hairs will distinguish 
this plant from C. officinale, L. C. germajiicum, Jacq., appears to be 
the older name. — G. C. Druce. 
Asperugo procumbens, L. Rubbish heaps, Grandpont, Berks., 
August, 1891. Since lost. — C. C. Druce. 
Symphytum patens, Sibth. Brass Knocker Hill, North Somerset, 
July, 1892. This is a much more distinctly marked variety than 
might be inferred from descriptions to be found in the text-books, 
none of which seem to be correct or complete. Its chief characters 
are a larger and more globular corolla of a pure blue colour mixed 
with white; broader leaves abruptly rounded at the base, and only 
slightly decurrent ; and a less succulent stem bearing merely raised 
lines instead of prominent wings, as in the type. The figure , in 
Syme’s ‘ E, B.’ is a good one. — Jas. W. White. “Is typical officinale, 
not patens, which has a dark purple flower.” — J. Gilbert Baker. 
As I have before pointed out, Sibthorp described his S. patens “foliis 
ovato-lanceolatis decurrentibus, calyce patente tubo corollie breviori, 
the red flowered Comfrey.” The S. officinale having “calyce 
convergente tubi corollas longitudine.” We have a specimen, labelled 
by Sibthorp S. patens, at Oxford, which I have recently examined 
with some amount of care. I fail to see that it answers Sibthorp’s 
description. The calyx is not more patent than the specimen which he 
labels A. officinale. His S. patens is a more luxuriant specimen than 
the rather dwarfer specimen of A. officinale, but it does not differ in the 
