64 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES. 
of the ligule, from specimens from type localities.” He adds that it 
varies somewhat in regard to the apex being more or less truncate, 
and does not consider it a variety worth naming. I send a few sheets, 
thinking that some members may like to possess it from an inland 
locality. Syme in ‘English Botany’ mentions Bedford, Devon, 
Beadley Bay, Gloucester, and Dublin as additional localities for this 
form. — A. B. Jackson. “ A^roJ>ia disians, Rupr., typica, no variety, 
quite the same as from Austria, the classical country of Poa disians, 
L. (Austria, D. Jacquin). Linnjeus himself says, ‘flores obtusi.’ ” — 
E. Hackel. 
Sclerochloa procumbe 7 is x distajis. Canal bank, near Higham 
West Kent, i6th September 1902. The plant described by Major 
Wolley-Dod in ‘Jour. Bot.,’ i8r ,, p. 84, as Glyceria disians, var. 
pseudo-p?'ocu/ 7 ibens, but we think tnere is little doubt that it is, as he 
surmised, this hybrid. — H. and J. Groves. 
Fesiuca arundhiacea, var. or forma angusiifolia. ])ungeness, 
Kent, July 1902. Although so very different in appearance from the 
type there is little to distinguish this form except the narrow leaves. 
The plant is referred to by me in the ‘Journal of Botany,’ p. 351 
(1902), in an article on the Dungeness flora as growing near the 
ponds of fresh water, which are one of the curious features of the 
vast deposit or accumulation of shingle near Dungeness. The plant 
grew in large tufts (all the specimens sent came from one tuft), and 
loose pebbles were present in considerable quantity intermingled with 
the lower part of the stems. The aspect was quite dissimilar from 
that of F. a 7 'U 7 idi 7 iacea of our stiff clay soils, and I hoped some other 
character might be found by which it could be differentiated from 
the type. — G. Claridge Druce. “A! a 7 -imdi)iacea, 7, pauciflora, 
Hartm. (see ‘Hack. Mem.,’ p. 157).” — E. Hackel. B. pauciflo 7 a, 
Hartm. ‘ Hand. Skan. FI.,’ ed. 2, 1832.” — Ed. 
Bro 77 ius mierrupius, Druce. Cornfields on the chalk near Prince’s 
Risborough, Buckinghamshire, June 1900. Last year I distributed 
some specimens of this grass, but my time was so much occupied 
that I was unable to give personal supervision, with the result that, 
according to the Rev. E. E. Linton, a specimen of B. 77 iollis, var. 
giabraius, was accidentally included in his sheet, but as the inner 
pale of the latter specimen was found not to be split it was of course 
not B. mierrupius. Mr. Linton discusses the claim which B. 
mierrupius has to specific distinction, and quoted those opinions, 
which were more or less adverse, and chiefly selected from the 
‘Report’ of this Club which appeared in 1895, P- 5 ° 3 ‘ 4 > where 
he says I raised it to a species. The fact is 1 gave it tliat rank 
in the ‘Suppl. to the Pharm. Jour.’ in October, and ‘Journal of 
Botany,’ December 1895. Exception has been taken to the 
former journal “ as not strictly a botanical publication,” but this 
cannot I think be seriously urged, since it has been the 
medium through which various species have been made known, 
