REPORT FOR I902, 
65 
and it indeed conforms more closely to a “ publication ” than 
does this ‘Report,’ which is of a semi-private character. But whether 
the ‘Pharm. Journ.’ is or is not a publication according to the “Laws” 
is not the matter to which I wish to draw attention, but to my paper 
read before the Linnean Society December 1895, where a full descrip- 
tion and account are for the first time given. Since then the Bromus 
was subjected to a full criticism, and subsequently, before printing, 
the President of the Society, Mr. C. B. Clarke, went very fully into 
the matter with Dr. Stapf. He reported in June 1896 that, in all the 
examples of B. interruptus, Druce, the upper pale is, even in the 
young flower, divided to the base There is nothing in 
any other species of Bronms approaching this Dr. Stapf 
cannot find any case parallel. The remarkable uniformity with which 
the upper pale is split to the base in every flower, in every specimen 
yet got from various localities, may be held to negative for the 
present that B. interruphis is a monstrosity. Of all the innumerable 
species proposed as split-offs from B. mollis^ there is no one so well 
worthy of a specific name as B. hiterruptus, Druce, and no one to be 
compared with it in morphological interest.” I may say that it was 
cultivated for some years in Messrs. Sutton’s trial grounds at Reading, 
and it was found to keep absolutely true ; remaining constant while 
B. mollis itself varied considerably under the same tests. The fruits 
were quite perfect, and could be distinguished from those of B. mollis 
by their being rather shorter. Those of B. mollis were longer, and 
frequently had the upper pale fused into them, so that they appeared 
more chaffy. Another character is to be found in the fruiting axis, 
which in B. mollis is drawn out to a point, while in B. mterruptus 
it is terminated by a cup-shaped process. It may be readily dis- 
tinguished in the field by the stronger growth and by the strict upright 
inflorescence. I may say that Mr. TulTnail, of Messrs. Sutton, had 
no doubt of its specific distinction, nor have other competent 
botanists who have studied it. Is there any known instance of a 
monstrosity appearing in widely separated areas, always remaining 
constant, and able to be perpetuated by seed unaltered ? In fact, the 
characters which separate it from B. mollis (a pleasing fact considering 
“the shadiest of shady characters” which are relied upon in some critical 
genera in recent British Botany) are too strong and are almost enteric 
rather than specific. There is a specimen labelled B. mollis, var. 
pseudo-vdutimis, collected by Miss Barnard, at Odsey, Herts, in 1849, 
in the ‘Watson Herbarium,’ at Kew, which Mr. H. C. Watson 
reported on in the ‘ Physologist,’ iii., 807-8, as a form of B. mollis ; 
see ‘ FI. Herts.,’ p. 468-9, which is the earliest notice of the plant in 
Britain which I possess. — G. Claridge Druce. 
Bromus arvensis, Lin. Cardiff, county 41, June 1902.— H. J. 
Riddelsdell. ’■'■Brofmis japonicus, var. grossus, Asch. et Grab., Syn. ii., 
620 {B. patuliis, V. grossus, Celak.).” — E. Hackel. “See ‘Uber Bro 7 ?ius 
jap07iicus, Thunb.,’von E. Hackel, in ‘Magyar botanikai lapoti,’ 1903, 
s, i.” — Ed. 
