REPORT FOR 1901. 
31 
Lolium perc 7 i 7 ie, L. Dry beech wood, near Pitchcombe, v.-c. 33, 
E. Gloucestershire, June 14th, 1901. This agrees with Babington’s 
description of var. tenue, L. ; but it may only be a state, due to the 
shallowness of soil over limestone. — Edward S. Marshall. “ Near 
to var. temie, I think, but perhaps only a wood form of type.” — Ar. 
Bennett, in ‘Watson B. E. C. Report,’ 1901-2, p. 25. 
Ag 7 'opyron juncewn^ Beauv. Growing with Elymus are 7 iarius, L.y 
on the sandy beach of Findhorn village, near Forres, north Elginshire, 
July 1901. Not recorded in ‘Topographical Botany,’ p. 504, for v.-c. 
95, only four Scotch counties being given for the species. — Charles 
Bailey. “ Recorded from Findhorn and Lossiemouth by Marshall 
and Shoolbred in ‘Journ. Bot.,’ 1899, p. 389. I have seen it in seven 
Scottish vice-counties, including Caithness and W. Sutherland.” — Ed. 
A. . Sent as Tritic 7 i 7 n aciAmn x repeTisT Amongst blown 
sand, within reach of high tides, to the west of Fleetwood, v.-c. 60, 
W. Lancashire, July 1901. The name and query suggested by Mr. 
Druce. There was only T. juncemji growing in the immediate vicinity 
so far as I observed. — J. A. Wheldon. “There is certainly a look 
of Agropyro 7 i acutiwi^ auct. brit., about these specimens, in regard to 
the spike at least ; but after careful examination I cannot find any 
details that justify that view. The leaves are purely A. 7 -cpe 7 is leaves; 
and in the spike itself the characters are so entirely those of A. 7 'epe 7 is 
that I can only suppose it has acquired a look of A. acutmii from 
growing in seaside sand. I believe it, therefore, to be A. 7 -epe 7 is, mari- 
time form, and not the hybrid that is suggested.” — E. F. Linton. 
Lastraa spmiilosa, Presl, var. glmidulosa (Moore). Boggy wood, 
Pont Esgob, Herefordshire, 28th August 1901. In the character of 
the scales, and the glandular development of the under surface of the 
frond, this seems to me to represent Moore’s plant very well. — 
Augustin Ley. “ I cannot name this so. I have an original 
specimen of it from Doubleday (Epping Forest) ; and that has not 
only the stipes densely covered with glands, but the pinme are so 
densely glandular as actually to seem to add to their thickness ! I do 
not consider Mr. Ley’s [plant from] Haugh Wood, Herefordshire, 
3rd September 1891, as glandulosa either. On Mr. Ley’s [plant from] 
Treven Glen, near Defyog, Brecon, 31st July 1899, Mr. J. G. Baker 
has noted: ‘This is not exactly Newman’s original gla 7 idu/osa, which 
has sharper teeth and is more densely glandular.’ And why does he 
quote Moore? Newman described it in ‘ Phytologist,’ iv., p. 256' 
(1851): ‘Attempt to characterise another apparently undescribed 
species of Lastraa, by Edward Newman.’ In his ‘ British Ferns,’ 
ed. 3, 154 (1854), he names it ^ Lopodiu 77 i gla 7 iduIosu 77 i.^ In this book 
he had the genera-splitting craze on, of which Watson said : ‘ I shall 
declare war against it.’ It is L. dilatata, var. gla 7 idulosa, Moore 
(‘ex parte,’ teste Syme), ‘ Handb. Brit. Ferns,’ ed. 2, 124, ed. 3, 127; 
Nephrodiimi dilatatu 77 i, vzx. glandulosu 77 i, Hooker, ‘Stud. FI.,’ 466. 
Syme in ‘Eng. Bot.,’ ed. 3, vol. 12, p. 82 (1886), .says: ‘I cannot 
help suspecting that Z. glandulosa is a hybrid between Z. spinulosa 
