159 
REPORT FOR 1905. 
(19) 
figured in Bot, Mag. f. 209. Mr. S. T. Dunn mentions its oc- 
currence as an alien in this country, but it has not before been ' 
recorded in Salop. — J. C. Melvill. 
Geranitim Rohertianum^ L., var. modestum, Jord. East Pentire, 
Newquay, i8th May 1905. In the Report of the Watson Exchange 
Club for 1 904, the Distributor says that specimens sent as this plant 
from Padstow by F. H. Davey are not modestum. I think that must 
be an error, as Davey knows the plant, and it is distinguished at 
a glance from the type. Mr. Clement Reid has worked up some 
of our Newquay plants at the British Museum, so I feel sure that 
what I now send is the true plant. — C. C. Vigors. “ The named 
variations of G. Robertianum in their extreme forms are doubtless 
distinct enough to be readily recognized. This plant, however, 
is an intermediate. It does not agree with the description of Jordan’s 
modesttcm given by Boreau, in that its flowers are too large, and 
that the lower peduncles exceed the leaves.” — Ed. “ I agree.” — C. 
Bucknall. “ I am of the same opinion ; but I do not know 
modestiun well.” — Edw. S. Marshall. 
Erodium ctcuiariuvi, L’Herit, var. No. 1351, hort., Walton- 
on-Thames, 23rd June 1905, from seed of a plant growing by the 
shore at Shoeburyness, S. Essex. No. 1352, allotments, Walton-on- 
'Phames, 23rd June 1905. The Shoeburyness plant grows with 
a more normal looking form, but differs from it in having much 
paler flowers and foliage. The petals looked decidedly shorter 
than normal, and more regular in length, but when I came to 
measure them I could not discover any difference. Unfortunately 
though the seed of the “ more normal ” plant germinated in my 
garden, it was weeded up by an officious gardener before it flowered, 
so I send No. 1352 from the allotments near here for comparison. 
This has the usual deep reddish petals, which are unspotted, and 
the foliage is darker green than in No. 1351. The latter plant 
has a peculiar fascicled habit at the nodes, which appears constant. 
I cannot make either fit any description I have seen. — A. H. 
Wolley-Dod. “ It is not hard to see points of difference between 
No. 1351 and 1352; but putting out of court the width of the 
leaflets, which varies according to soil, and the degree of hairiness, 
which varies according to the exposure, there does not remain 
much to separate the forms beyond the stipules which are a very 
conspicuous feature in No. 1351.” — E. F. Linton. “I have never 
been able to make the forms of E. cicutarium fit in well with the 
descriptions of Babington and Hooker. No. 1351 I should refer 
to var. charophyllum, Cav. ; No. 1352 differs much in leaf-cutting, 
but does not agree well with our commonest form — var. vulgaium, 
Syme.” — E. S. Marshall. 
