REPORT FOR 1894. 
435 
are usually tightly pressed to the ground, in a symmetrical rosette, 
bright-green, glabrescent, fleshy or subcoriaceous; petioles mostly short, 
broad. Seeds about 20-25 ^ cell, brown, rugose or tubercled. 
The whole habit is markedly different from the other Erophila 
forms of my neighbourhood, which frequently grow in company with 
it. Though rather near E. brachycarpa, Jordan! it is not identical. 
The authentic specimens of E. virescens, Jordan, in Herb. Brit. Mus. 
appears to my eye to be this, but I have not seen a description. I 
am inclined to think that the plant is worthy of specific or sub- 
specific distinction. M. CorbiHe, to whom a series has been sent, 
has not yet reported upon it. — E. S. Marshall. 
Erophila stenocarpa, Jord ! Milford, Surrey, 12th April, 1894. 
No. 1218. — E. S. Marshall. This is placed by Nyman as a var. 
under the sub-species E. Krockeri^ Jord. — W. R. L. 
E. , Sandy cornfield, Frimley, Surrey, 14th May, 1894. No. 
1215. This is a peculiar little plant, which I have not met with 
elsewhere ; the lower pedicels and pods are remarkably long, considering 
its small size. Locally abundant \ associated with one of our ordinary 
forms, but keeping quite distinct from it. — Edward S. Marshall. 
Seems to come near E. Krockeri^ Jord. — W. R. L. 
Cochlearia micacea, mihi. Root from Unst, Shetland, leg. W. H. 
Shoolbred, 1892. Cult. Milford, Surrey, 5th June, 1894. All the 
specimens are from one plant, which has puzzled me much at various 
stages of its growth, but which cannot, I think, be separated from that 
which I recently described in the Journal of Botany.’ There is a 
slight apparent tendency towards raised veins in some of the capsules ; 
this may, however, be simply due to shrinkage. The seed was all shed 
before my return from a month’s holiday, so that I am not yet able to 
settle the point. New County Record. Stems spreading in all 
directions, procumbent. — Edward S. Marshall. 
C. . Ullapool, W. Ross, June, 1894.— G. C. Druce. 
“ This puzzling plant has been already sent to me for an opinion by 
Mr. Druce. It looks like a luxuriant form of the northern coast 
plant, which I consider to be C. gr(«?ilandica, L., but I do not name 
it with any confidence. It can hardly go to either C. danica or 
C. officinalisP — Edward S. Marshall. 
C. officinalis, L. var. ( ? C. pyrenaica, DC.). Root from Ben 
Creachain, Argyle, at 2,800 feet, July, 1893 ; cult. Milford, Surrey, 
15th June and July, 1894. No. 1382. This plant, originally 
gathered at 2,800 feet, growing in a rocky rill, appeared to me at the 
time to be inseparable from ty^e-officinalis. In cultivation, however, 
it maintains a different habit, producing many procumbent stems 
which spread in all directions. The general appearance is not 
unlike that of a strong C. pyrenaica, DC., with which it may, indeed 
be identical. I should be inclined to leave that under C. officinalis, L., 
as a variety. All the specimens sent were gathered from one plant. — 
E. S. Marshall. Agrees very fairly in general appearance with 
specimens of C. pyrenaica which I received from M. Bordere. But 
