54^ the botanical exchange club of the BRITISH ISLES. 
than that from Glamorgan, but they agree in all essentials. — 
Edward S. Marshall. A stout form of C. tetrandrum^ Curtis, 
I consider. There is a similar plant in the Br. Mus. Herb, col- 
lected at St. Aubin’s Bay, Jersey, April 24, 1871, by Dr. Trimen. 
See ‘Journ. Bot.,’ ix. 1871, pp. 199, 371. The jersey plant is more 
branched than the present specimens, but notwithstanding this 
there are strong points of resemblance. — A. B. Jackson. Not C. 
subtetrandrum, Murbeck, in my opinion. — G. C. Druce. 
Stellaria Dilleniana, Moench. [ref. No. 3127]. Walton Bridge 
meadow, Middlesex, Aug. 31, 1910. This interesting plant was 
described by Mr. F. N. Williams in 1909, and kindly allowed by 
him to be recorded in the ‘ Report B.E.C.’ 413, 1909, as S. palus- 
tris, Retz., var. viridis, Fries. These specimens are from his 
locality, which I visited with William Davy last August, and found 
it to be plentiful, growing with S. palustris, from which it kept 
quite distinct, (i) as regards its time of flowering — on August 31 — 
when no trace of the flowers of palustris could be seen ; (ii) by 
its green colour being quite constant ; I quite expected to have 
found it grade off, but such was not the case ; even when a tangled 
mass suggested this, careful tracking showed two distinct plants, 
each coming from its own root, with the leaves all glaucous, or 
all green, as the case might be. This I think dispels the idea 
of a cross with S. graminea as being the cause of the variation ; 
a suggestion, too, equally nullified by the paucity of flowers on 
the flowering cyme, and the absence of ciliation on the leaf- 
margin. Third, the cymes are 1-2 flowered only. 
Now to discuss its position. In recent times botanists have 
ignored what Koch (‘Syn.’ 119, 1837), says of Stellaria graminea: 
“ Occurrit floribus minoribus et duplo majoribus, quae varietates, 
observante Schummelio, sexum polygamo- dioicum indicant; conf. 
‘FI. Siles.’ i. 417.” Rouy and Foucaud and more recent writers 
have either ignored these differences or treated the large and 
small flowered forms as distinct varieties. But they cannot be 
considered as true varieties, if they are correlated with sexual 
factors. This fact was well pointed out on specimens of S. 
graminea by Mr. C. E. Britton in ‘ Rep. Bot. Exch. Club,’ p. 364, 
1908. Therefore the separation of the varieties of 6". palustris 
as is done by Rouy and Foucaud (‘Flore France,’ iii. 233) into 
o. conununis^ Fenzl, with large flowers, and / 3 . parviflora, Richt., 
with small flowers, can scarcely be maintained. If it were so, 
this plant would not be S. Dilleniana, Moench, which as figured 
(‘Enum. PI. Hass.,’ t. 6) has quite small flowers not exceeding the 
calyx, and is described by Moench “ calyx . . . petalis aequalibus,” 
a character which misled some botanists, e.g. Leers (‘ FI. Herborn.’ 
i° 7 ) ^ 775 )» to refer it to a form of A. uliginosa^ and Rouy and 
Foucaud, I.C., to write S. palustris, var. toarviflora, Richt., s.v. 
