REPORT FOR I907. 
273 
Barbarea vulgaris^ R. Br. f, ?. Origin, Glais, Glamorgan (on 
colliery debris), cultivated 27th May and 9th July 1907. This 
curious form has the seed longer than broad, short spreading pods 
with not more than 2-3 seeds in each. — Augustin. Ley. A form of 
B. vulgaris with imperfect fructification. The r-3 seeded silicles 
are evidently not normal. — E. F. L. A distinct looking plant, 
striking features of which are the large yellow flowers and short 
nearly patent pods. Mr. J. R. Drummond and I compared this 
with Kew material and found that it came nearest to B. taurica, 
DC. Syst. 2, 207, a plant of Afghanistan and Cashmere, but Boissier, 
‘FI. Orient.’ 1 . 183, makes B, taurica a synonym of B. arcuala, Reichb., 
a plant which I do not pretend to understand. The description in 
the Systemci is as follows : — Barbarea foliis radicalibus et inferioribus 
pinnatipartitolyratis lobis terminalibus foliisque summis ovatis den- 
tatis, pedicellis patulis, siliquis adscendentibus. The label conveys 
no information as to whether this was an alien or not, but the 
abortive condition of many of the pods in my specimen is an in- 
dication of foreign origin. An examination of the Barbarea 
specimens preserved at Kew makes it clear that a revision of this 
difficult genus is desirable, but this would not be possible without 
a careful study of the living plants. — A. B. Jackson. '•Barbarea 
vulgaris, Br.’ now appears in ‘ Lon. Cat.’ as B. vulmris. Ait.— 
H. J. R. 
B. vulgaris, Br., var. Near Aberdare, June 1904 and 1905, and 
cult, from seed, Llandaff, Glam., 1907. Flowers small; silicles slen- 
derer than in type, and in cultivation spreading, though in the wild 
state nearly adpressed. Does a name already exist for the variety 1 
It is not var. deci/>iens, Druce (‘ FI. Berks,’ p. 44), which does not 
cover this small fld. form. — H. J. Riddelsdell. Is B. vulgaris, 
Br. — E. F. L. i.e., B. vulgaris. Ait. — H. J. R. I should cross out 
the var. Allowing for a* certain amount of variation, I do not see 
how it differs from the plant usually recognised as B. vulgaris type. 
— A. B. Jackson. Mr. Jackson adds in a subsequent letter, “ I 
believe that the material preserved under ” B. vulgaris “ at Kew 
includes two if not three different plants. . . . The direction taken 
by the pods both when young and mature seems very variable. I 
find a small flowered plant very much like yours in habit but having 
the young pods spreading, collected by the late Mr. C. B. Clarke 
near Andover. This also is named vulgaris” 
B. stricta, Andrz. Banks of the Thames near Richmond {locus 
classicus), June and July 1907. This is associated with B. vulgaris 
in the locality named but is remarkably distinct from it, and no 
intermediate plants were noticed. The stiff erect hairs which are 
present on the young sepals of B. stricta afford a useful distin- 
guishing character not mentioned in British floras. In B. vulgaris 
