PLANT NOTES FOR I9I0, ETC. 
515 
4. U. ochroleuca, Hartm. This plant, to which Prof. Trail 
thought some of the Scottish intermedia might be referred, is treated 
as being certainly Scottish by Dr. Williams (‘ Prod. FI. Brit.’ 348), 
and he gives Wigton, Kirkcudbright, Dumfries, Argyll, Sutherland 
and Skye ; he also unhesitatingly adopts Neuman’s (‘ Bot. Notiser,’ 
65 — 66, 1900) view that it is a hybrid of intermedia and minor ^ 
since “ these two plants are always found in its vicinity.” 
Dr. Gliick, who was at my house last autumn, has made a very 
special study of this group, and has been able to correct some of 
the statements made by Meister, and to give additional characters 
by which this species (as he holds it) is to be distinguished. 
U. ochroleuca, first discovered by Hartman in Sweden, has 
been since found in Norway and France (Vosges) (to this per- 
haps is to be referred Celakovsky’s U. intermedia, var. brevicornis 
from West Galicia), also in South Bohemia, Brandenburg, the Rhine 
Palatinate and some other places in North Germany. To these 
localities Gliick fortunately added that of the Black Forest, 
where it occurs in the absence of intermedia, thus practically 
proving that it is not a hybrid. My query in the ‘ List ’ was as to 
its occurrence in Scotland, since the records made were sugges- 
tive rather than positive. 
Dr. Gliick recognised as ochroleuca, a specimen in my herbarium 
which I gathered in Loch Mallachie in Easterness in 1882, and I have 
also one collected near Aviemore in 1869 on ray first visit to Scot- 
land. The gradual attenuation of the leaf segments, and the pre- 
sence of a few bladders on the assimilating shoots, offer ready means 
of identifying the plant in its usually barren state, as Dr. Gliick 
(‘ Deutsch Bot. Gesells.’ xx, 141, 1902) shows. This leaf character 
gives the plant a slightly more graceful habit. In dried specimens 
it is essential to observe if the assimilating shoot is not stuck down 
with an adhering subterranean shoot, or if the utricles have not been 
separated from thefproper shoot and accidentally fastened to the 
green shoot. I have seen ochroleuca from 88 Coninish Valley, 1888, 
89 Loch of Lowes (Hb. Hanbury), 96 Loch Mallachie, Aviemore, 
107 and 1 12 (Beeby, 1890, Hb. Br. Mus.). Dr. Gliick also named 
as ochroleuca my specimen collected in 1875, from Kylemore, 
Galway. Trail refers to specimens from 72, 74, 98, 104, and 108. 
Another argument against ochroleuca being a hybrid is the 
rarity of the flowering stage in the two supposed parents, and 
