REPORT FOR 1 895. 
477 
7 ?. hirtifolius^ Muell. and Wirtg, (i) Banks of the Caledonian 
Canal at Aberchalder, Central Invernesshire, i8th July, 1895. — 
Charles Bailey. (2) Woods, Knock Urin, Westmeath, 31st July, 
1895, — H. C. Levinge. (3) Corwen, 2nd Aug. (two slightly differing 
forms) ; (4) Rhydymaen, 3rd Aug. ; (5) Bryncoedifor, 4th Aug. — 
all, (3), (4), and (5), Merioneth, 1895, — W. R. Linton. (6) Siliwen 
Woods, Bangor, Carnarvon, Aug., 1895. — Jno. E. Griffith. “These 
numerous specimens are plainly not identical, but seem to represent 
a series of allied forms. How many of them may be rightly placed 
under an aggregate R. hirtifolius I can hardly yet say with certainty, 
as the range of variation which that species may cover is still unknown 
to me. But (i) seems to be good hirtifolius (new County record); 
(2) is only kept from being identical with flowering specimens of 
Continental R. daniais, Focke, by some of its leaves being whitish- 
felted beneath ; (3) and (4) appear somewhat intermediate between 
R, hirtifolius and R. Newbouldii, though, I think, nearer to the former 
(especially the Corwen specimens); while (5) may probably be better 
associated with other species (see below, under R. curvidefis), and I 
should prefer labelling (6) R. pyramidalis^ forma wnbrosaP — W. M. R. 
R. leucostachys, Schleich. forma. Rushton Spencer, N. Staffordshire, 
26th August, 1895. — Charles Bailey. “ Yes forma laciniataP — 
^V. M. R. 
R. curvidens, A. Ley. “ From five localities near together in 
Merioneth, 1895.” — Finton. i(i) Llanbedr, loth Aug.; (2) 
Llanfair, 12th Aug. ; (3) Llanfair, nth Aug. ; (4) Llanfair, 8th Aug. ; 
(5) by R. Afon Artro, 13th Aug. “ Certainly not all identical. I 
consider (i) unmistakeably and (2) a variety of the same, with 
almost or quite eglandular panicle and very few stalked glands on 
stem ; (3) also seems a form of it, though with considerably different 
armature and uncharacteristic panicle. But (4) and (5) are surely not 
separable from Mr. Linton’s Bryncoedifor ^ R. hirtifolius'' (see above), 
and may prove a new species belonging to the RadulasP — W. M. R. 
R. 7 nucronatus^ Blox., E. F. Linton. From three localities in S. 
Northumberland, 1894. — Charles Bailey. (i) near Low Gate, on 
the high road to Hexham, i8th July ; (2) in a wood about a quarry 
between Bridge End and Oakwood, north of Hexham, 21st July; (3) 
wood near a quarry, similarly situated, 21st July. “ Young for ready 
determination, yet surely not R. fnucro 7 iatus, Blox., but (i) R. 
Lindebergii, P. J. Muell; (2) R. fulcherrwius, Neum.; (3) apparently 
R. pyra 77 iidalis, Kalt, forma u//ib 7 'osa. (All three new County records.)” 
— W. M. R. 
R. hifestusj Weihe. Near Duflield, Derby., 2nd September, 1895. 
W. R. Linton. “Yes; a strongly-armed form. New for the County.” 
W. M. R. 
R. Borreri, Bell Salt. Drwsynant, Merioneth, 6th August, 1895. — 
W. R. Linton. “ Less glandular than is usual in the south, and 
varying slightly towards var. de 7 itatifolius. New record for Wales.” — 
W. M. R. 
