(42) THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES. 1 82 
probably full exposure and less moisture than usual, would natur- 
ally produce a more floriferous and less foliaceous result than 
would occur in a wet situation in deep or rich soil, while 
shade of tree or hedgerow would still more limit the develop- 
ment of flowers. Perhaps ‘/. aprica ’ would describe the plant not 
less accurately than spicata.' ” — E. F. Linton. M. Briquet 
considers M. ruhra to be M. \aquatica-arve 7 uis x viridis] ; if this 
be so, a very considerable range of variability is to be expected, and 
the suggestion seems a probable one. — G. C. Druce. 
M. resinosa, Opiz. Origin, edge of Llyn Padarn, Llanberis, 
Carnarvon. Cult., Underdown, Ledbury, loth August 1905. See 
‘Watson Club Report,’ 1904, p, 22. — S. H. Bickham. “Nyman 
gives M. resijiosa, Opiz. as a syn. of M. gejiti/is, L., and more 
I cannot find about it beyond Mr. Bennett’s note. Mr. Bickham’s 
specimens seem to me allied rather to M. genlilis than M. ruhra. 
The only specimen I possess at all like this is one from Nuthurst 
Common, which I suspect to be M. rubra x viridis, I have 
M. rubra from the locality. If I am right in this conjecture, then 
this plant of Mr. Bickham’s may very well be M. gentilis x viridis., 
the flowers recalling M. gentilis chiefly as the leaves do M. tnridis. 
The glands on the calyx referred to by Mr. Bennett are not 
of critical value in this case.” — E. F. Linton. “ M. Briquet 
considers M. gentilis to be a hybrid of M. arvensis with M. viridis, 
see ‘ Prod, FI. Belg.,’ p. 685.” — G, C. Druce. 
M, gentilis, L., var. IVifdgefiiafia, F. Schultz. River-side, 
Fawley, Herefordshire, 12th August 1905. The distinctions whicli 
separate this variety I'rom the type seem so small as to leave 
me quite doubtful where to refer tliis — the common form in 
this neighbourhood. I shall be glad of expert opinion on it. — 
Augustin Ley. “ No doubt correct. In its foliaceous inflor- 
escence this plant agrees exactly with M. JVirtgeniafta, F. Schultz, in 
Wirtgen’s set of Mints No. 5 labelled ‘ forma foliosa,’ in the 
‘ Herb. PI. Rhen.,’ except for Mr. Ley’s plant having rather 
more hairy leaves. In this particular, however, it does not differ 
from No. 68 in the same set, a typical specimen of M. Wirtgeniana. 
According to ‘ Syme E. B.,’ M. gentilis (sensu restricto) has leaves 
and calyx more thickly clothed with hairs.” — E. F. Linton. “ This 
probably fairly represents what is known as M. Wirtgeniana, 1*'. 
Schultz ; but, besides the somewhat thinner and more glabrous 
leaves, and less hairy stems, there does not seem to be much to 
distinguish it from the normal gentilis, of which I am inclined to 
regard it rather as a sub-glabrous form than a well-marked variety, 
and the points in which it differs from them may be due to damp 
situations.” — 1). Fry. “ylA Wirtgeniana is jiut as a Yariety of 
M. rubra in the ‘ Prod. Id. Belg.’ ” — G. C. Druce. 
