REPORT FOR I90I. 
19 
think this to be rightly named as above, and would rather refer it to 
H. diaphanum, Fr., with West Yorkshire specimens of which in ‘Herb. 
Hanb.’ it agrees well. — Augustin Ley. 
Hieracium diaphanum, Fr. Deep Dale, Derbyshire, 2nd August 
1901. This is certainly wrongly named diaphanum, Fr., and must fall 
under the small form of H. sciaphilum^ Uechtr. Named H. sdaphilum 
by Mr. Hanbury. — Augustin Ley. “ I see nothing to take it off 
from typical sciaphilumP — Ed. 
H. rigidum, Hartman, forma? Old limestone quarry, Tuttshill, 
v.-c. 34, W. Gloucester, i6th July 1901. — W. A. Shoolbred. “Good 
H. sdaphilum^ of which it has the normal foliage, involucres, and pilose- 
tipped ligules. Mr. Shoolbred concurs in this correction.” — Ed. 
H. rigidum, near var. strigosiim, Ley. Chapel-le-Dale, West 
Yorkshire, 24th July 1901. This, I now see, is not referable to my 
Breconshire H. strigosum, but it agrees exactly with plants in ‘ Herb. 
Hanb.,’ which are declared by Dr. Elfstrand to be H. sparsifolium, 
var. placerophylbim, Dahlst. — Augustin Ley. 
H. rigidum, var. acrifolium, Dahlst. Fortingal, Perthshire, ist 
August 1891 ; and cult. June-July 1896-9. Specimens of this were 
submitted to the author of the variety, and so named by him — W. R. 
Linton. “ Practically identical witli what we have been so calling 
in the south of England; but here the leaves are, as a rule, still more 
sharply toothed.” — Ed. 
IP. stridum, Fr., forma. Dunphail Glen, Morayshire, August 12th, 
1897. — W. A. Shoolbred. “My own specimens of this were named 
siridum by Mr. Hanbury.” — Ed. 
Statice Limonium x rariflora. Marshy margins of Bosham Channel, 
W. Sussex, I St August 1901. — E. F. Linton and E. S. Marshall. Same 
neighbourhood, i6th September 1901. — Ar. Bennett. “Gathered in 
company with the Rev. E. S. Alarshall, and suspected on the spot, at 
two localities half a mile distant, to be a hybrid between S. Limonium, 
L., and S. 7-ariflora, Drej. After careful examination and due dis- 
cussion, we were both of us convinced that sundry gatherings, with 
sli'dit variations mter se, were this interesting hybrid. See ‘Journ. 
Bot.,’ 1902, p. 41.” — E. F. Linton. “As I rather thought, this is 
substantially A. bahusiemsis, var. danica, Fr., according to specimens 
gathered by Gelert and Moller (their plant, however, is much smaller); 
but, in ‘Sum. Veg. Scand.,’ p. 200, Fries says, ^ Danica = S. rariflora, 
Drej.,’ which is exactly what we should not say. You see that there 
is need for this to be carefully compared at Kew and B. Mus. before 
you make any note on it. I doubted the hybridity, and do now, but 
cannot contradict it; still, it needs careful comparison.” — Ar. Bennett. 
“ It is only fair to state that Mr. Bennett’s gathering was from a point 
south of Bosham village (and, I believe, from one plant or group of 
plants) : the original stations, to the north, being submerged when we 
