REPORT FOR I909. 
483 
siderable abundance in shade and under trees in a dark corner 
of Grass Wood, Grassington. It was first noticed by me Aug. 1900, 
—John Cryer. Var. loliaceum, Asch. et Graeb., Syn. FI. Mit- 
teleurop. (1901) ii. 633 = B. loliacewn, R. et S. Syst ii. (1817) 
74 o—^- Bennett. Is ^’ 2 cc. pubescens^'siym.e, surely. — C. E. Salmon. 
The flowers are softly hairy ] so I suppose it to be the var. pubes- 
cens, Gray, reduced in size, owing to the situation. — E. S. Mar- 
shall. B. pin 7 iatiun, Beauv., var. vulgare, Koch. — E. Hackel. 
Bromus 7 mioloides, H. B. & K. River-side, Belgrave, Lei- 
cester, v.-c. 55, Aug. 1909. Many interesting casuals have found 
a temporary home on the banks beside the river Soar, below 
Leicester. The seeds may have been brought to the town with 
raw material of some kind and have been washed down by the 
current. — W. Bell. 
Equisetum palusire, L., var. nudiun, Newman. In a wet 
meadow, near Drumcliffe, Co. Sligo. Also observed in wet places 
in the sand-dunes near Rockfield, Co. Wicklow.' In the Sligo 
locality it was extremely abundant and distinct, but as it grew with 
the normal form, it could scarcely be the influence of soil or date 
which causes the 7 iudum condition. Intermediate forms occurred. 
I am not certain whether S. Gibson is not the authority for the 
varietal name. — G. C. Druce. Not quite the variety, I think, 
though tending towards it. — E. S. Marshall. Not at all my idea 
of var. nudum, which is a smaller plant throughout with slender 
stems. Besides, I see young branchlets appearing at most of the 
whorls. Why is this not palustre in a young state (i.e. May)? — C. E. 
Salmon. To Mr. C. E. Salmon’s enquiry it may be answered that 
the plant grew with the ordinary form of pahistre, so that it was not 
the age of the plants which gave rise to the variation, but I think 
it perhaps owes the non-development of its branches to some 
defective root-absorption. It is the var. nudum, Duby, Botanicon 
Gallic, p. 535, 1829, as described by Milde in his ‘Monograph’ 
of Equisetorum, published in 1865, i.e. “ Caulis validus, 8 — ii 
angulus, 12 — 16 [inches] altus, erectus nudus,” Newman however 
published in the ‘ Phytologist,’ vol. ii. p. 627, 1844, a “var. nudum, 
Gibs. MSS.” which he says “ differs principally from the normal 
form in being without branches, or nearly so, the occurrence 
of a few scattered ones being occasional only, and constituting 
the exception rather than the rule. . . . The specimens vary con- 
siderably in size as well as in general appearance; those from 
Scotland, Yorkshire and Lancashire are very small — two inches ; 
those from Devonshire are somewhat larger [the figure is nearly 
4 inches], and I have seen others of more luxuriant growth. 
Some of the examples are erect, others prostrate.” The figure 
shows some of the stems with branches, but considering the rather 
