460 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES. 
Sticeda maritima, Dum. v. procumbens, Syme. Seashore, near 
Weymouth, Dorset, 24th July, 1894. — J. W. White. Right, I believe, 
but not well representing the variety. — W. R. L. 
Urtica dioica, L. v. angustifolia, A. Blytt. Wood at Eastham, 
Cheshire, October, 1894. If this is the true plant of Blytt, its 
peculiarities depend very much on situation. In the depth of die wood 
it is tall (over 5 feet high; specimens sent are side branches), and the 
leaves narrow ; towards the border of the wood the leaves become 
relatively shorter and broauer at the base ; and at the extreme edge 
many of the*plants have cordate leaves extending up among the flowers, 
but never so much and decidedly cordate as in ordinary dioica . — 
J. A. Wheldon. V. angiistifolia. Near Ringmoor, S- Devon, i6th 
July, 1894. I have omitted an authority for the varietal name, not 
being sure whose was the earliest description. The hairs on the 
leaves appeared to be stingless or mostly so. — E. S. Marshall. 
“ Both these specimens seem correctly named, the apical portion of 
the leaves is very prolonged in both, and gives the leaves a peculiar 
appearance. Blytt, “ Veg. Sogne,” p. 108 (1869) seems to have 
overlooked that his name was preoccupied by v. angustifoJia, W. & G. 
‘FI. Sil.’, 1827-29. But Fries in ‘Nov. FI, .Suec.’ ed. ii., p. 281, 
names what is substantially the same ‘ /■’. //<^/<^i'd??7Vmfoliis angustioribus,’ 
I do not possess Wimmer & Grabowski’s work so cannot say whether 
they precede Fries’ name or not.” — A. Bennett. 
Epipaclis violacea, Boreau. Crowell Wood, Oxon, Sept., 1894. 
This plant grows abundantly in some of the Oxfordshire woods on the 
chalk. These specimens were gathered late in September, in Crowell 
Wood, 'rhey were then in good condition, while the plants of E. 
latifolia were all out of flower. This plant is conspicuously tinged 
with violet-purple in both leaves and stem, especially in its early 
growth. The flowers are however much paler than those of E. lati- 
folia. I have tried, I am afraid in vain, to dry these specimens so as to 
show this character. The plants almost invariably grow in tufts, while 
those of E. latifolia are often solitary, but the different time of flowering 
is a very noticeable character. It is very desirable that the confusion 
respecting the correct identity and the synonymy of the European 
species of Epipaclis should be put straight. Are we correct in super- 
seding Smith’s name of E. purpurata ?, and does the plant now 
distributed differ specifically from Smith’s plant ?, are questions on 
which I should be glad to have the opinion of British botanists. The 
name is often cited as of Durand Duquesnel, but in the ‘Cat. PL de 
Lisieux’ he calls it E. latifolia var. violacea. Boreau raised it to the 
rank of a species, and I share his opinion that it is a distinct species. 
I have appended his e.xcellent description, since it fits our plant better 
than any other with which I am acquainted. Epipaclis violacea, 
Boreau, ‘FI. du centre de la France,’ vol. ii, p. 651. Souche epaisse 
produi.sant des touffes de tiges societaires de 2 a 7 decim. cylindracees, 
sans angles ni stries, excepte au sommet, robustes, couvertes surtout 
dans le haut d’une pubescence papilleuse, pulverulente brillante ; 
gaines des feuilles inferieures etroitement embrassantes ; feuilles 
lanceolees aigues, souvent plus courtes que les entre-nceuds, passant 
