REPORT FOR 1909. 
471 
campesiris “ the common rough or broad-leaved Wych Elm,” while 
he gives the name the small-leaved or English Elm to U. saliva, 
which he says is not a native of England, and that as it is well 
known it requires no description. He could never observe any seeds 
upon it. His description of the habitat of U. canipestris precludes 
it from being the English Elm, which must have been well-known 
to him, and no other of his six elms, except saliva, seems to be 
applicable. — G. C. Druce. 
Ulmus jnajor. Smith. Road-side trees i:|- miles from Mon- 
mouth, on the Rockfields road, Monmouthshire, v.-c. 35, May 10 
and August 26, 1909. Occurring at irregular intervals in the hedge- 
rows ; no evidence whether spontaneous or no. — Augustin Ley. 
'Hie name Ulmus major, Sm. (‘Eng. Bot.’ t. 2,542, 1814), has no 
standing, as on Smith’s own showing {loc. cil.), it is synonymous with 
U. hollandicus. Mill. (‘ Gard. Diet.,’ ed. 8, i868). I take the large- 
leaved specimen on this sheet to be the elm known in Cambs. as 
the “ Huntingdon Elm,” which is not improbably U. glabra. Mill. 
X U. scabra. Mill. — C. E. Moss. Specimens from Plukenet in 
Hb. Sloane of U. hollandica (Hb. Br. Mus.) prove this to be 
U. scabra, Miller. On the other hand type specimens of U. major, 
Sm. (Hb. Br. Mus.) are the suberous plant described and figured 
by Smith under this name. Smith was therefore in error in quoting 
U. hollandica as synonymous with his major. The plant sent from 
Monmouth is U. major, not vegela. — Augustin Ley. There are 
seYeral typical examples of this Elm in Kew Gardens, where it is 
labelled U. glabra. It is also common in the grounds at Hampton 
Court. It comes into leaf about three weeks later than the English 
Elm. The suggestion by more than one authority that this is 
U. glabra X mo?ilana is a reasonable idea of its origin, as the tree 
is exactly intermediate in character, in bark, leaf and habit. Mr. 
Ley’s citation of U. major, Sm. in ‘Jour. Bot.’ p. 7, 1910, is 
inaccurate. It should read Ulmus major, Sm., ‘Eng. Bot.’ t. 2,542, 
1813; ‘ Lindl. Syn.’ 226, 1829. — A. B. Jackson. 
Ulmus surculosa, Stokes. Hedge, Upton Bishop, Hereford- 
shire, October 17, 1909. Sent to illustrate the occasional suberosity 
of the suckers and small twigs at the base of the bole ; the rest of 
the tree being non-suberous. As a rule this tree exhibits no suber- 
osity on any part, in this differing from U. major, Sm., which is 
always I believe suberous on the suckers and small bole-twigs ; 
the suberosity when it does occur is very unevenly produced. — 
Augustin Ley. I am not sure that this is the same species as the 
other specimen so named by Mr. Ley. It is absolutely impossible 
at present to determine Elms from sucker-shoots alone ; and every 
such shoot sent out should be accompanied by a normal shoot also. 
. — C. E. Moss. Typical C/i (rrt'w/w/mjauct. angl. for which the name 
