REPORT FOR 1 894. 
451 
and the whole habit is very anomalous. I did not succeed in finding 
the pollen-grains in the dry specimens, but this kind of research may 
afford us a clear evidence when applied to the living plant.” The 
plant occurred in patches amid dense quantities of the two supposed 
parents. Dr. Focke’s reply come too late for me to adopt his suggestion, 
but I will carefully watch for the reappearance of the plant this year. 
— G. C. Druce. “I see no sign of the hybrid in this; it is a small form 
o{ germanim, of late growth, or on very dry soil. Is it not near to 
lanugmosa, DC.?” — A. Bennett. I cannot see anything of F. minima 
iu this plant. It produces good fruit and so does not favour the idea 
of hybridity. I should call it a form, or possibly a variety, of F. 
germanica.SY . R. L. 
Filago spathulata, Presl. Roadside on Stubbing’s Heath, near 
Maidenhead, Berks, Sept., 1894. At first I was rather inclined to 
think this might be a form of F. apiculata^ but am now more inclined 
to put it under the above name. In Britain there are several forms 
w'hich do not well come under either of the described plants. — G. 
Claridge Druce. “ Yes,” F. spathulata. — E. F. L. and W. R. L. 
Inula britannica, L. ? Shore of Cropstone Reservoir, Leicester- 
shire, Aug., 1894. Casual. A patch of this plant appeared this 
summer on the shore of the Cropstone Reservoir, six miles from 
Leicester. There were probably a hundred individual plants, every 
one of the same habit, a single leafy unbranched stem bearing one 
terminal flower. It was a place pitched with large stones, the plants 
growing between the stones. Specimens were sent to three experts, 
who respectively named them Inula salicina, montana^ and britannica. 
On comparison with specimens at the Cromwell Road Herbarium the 
plant seems to agree best with britannica, yet not perfectly. That 
species is generally corymbosely branched, while our plant is very 
distinctly unbranched and single- headed. There is, however, a bud 
in the upper axil of some of the larger specimens. — F. T. Mott. 
“ /. britarmica, L.” — E. F. L. and W. R. L. 
Arcthim majus, Schk. In a large quarry, Sutton Maddocks, 
Shropshire, Aug., 1894. — W. H. Painter. Not recorded for v.-c. 
40 in Watson’s ‘Top. Bot.’ Ed. ii. 
A. minus, Schk. Sutton Maddocks, Shropshire, nth ikug., 1894. 
— W. H. Painter. Not recorded for v.-c. 40 in Watson’s ‘Top. 
Bot.’ Ed. ii. 
Cnicus arvetisis x palustris ? Meadows near the Avon, above 
Aveton Gifford, S. Devon, 17th July, 1894. This plant occurred 
with the supposed parents for a considerable distance, and in good 
quantity. Although upon the whole considerably nearer in facies 
to palustris, it approached arvensis in colouring of herbage and 
flowers, and in the involucres. I do not think that it can be called 
palustris, pure and simple. It seems to be sterile. — Edward S. 
Marshall. “ I think this is only a form of C. palustris .” — G. C. 
Druce. I find good seed plentifully produced in the mature heads, 
which is strongly negative of hybridity here. I should call it 
palustris. — W. R. I^. 
