REPORT FOR T 910 . 
547 
viridis^ R. and F. If that view Avere adopted we should have to 
call our plant S. palustris, var. viridis^ Fries. But it may be urged 
that the characters given at the outset — time of flowering, paucity 
of flowers, green colour of leaves — are of sufficient value to 
constitute a distinct species. I think not. Even splitters like 
Rouy and Foucaud, or able and critical botanists such as Koch, 
Fries and Nyman, do not so consider it. No continental botanist 
that I am aware of ventures to keep it a distinct species apart 
from palustris ; perhaps on Jordanian lines or those of the modern 
“ Hieraciarch ” it might be so separated, but I think we shall 
do well to keep it as a variety ; that it is a good variety I have 
no doubt, and not a soil variation. Therefore, as Moench first 
established Stellaria Dilleniana in ‘ Enum. PI. Hass.’ p. 214, 1777 , 
notwithstanding it describes a less widely diffused plant than the 
one afterwards established by Retzius as palustris, we must accord- 
ing to ‘ The Actes ’ treat it as the type, and write S. Dilleniana, 
Moench, \ax. palustris (Retz. ‘FI. Scand.’ ii. 106, 1795 ). Both 
variety and species having its two sizes of flowers, some Ijotanists 
who ignore the sexual form of flowers might name our plant as 
they think more precisely S. Dilleniana, Moench, forma macro- 
petala (Krok. ‘ Bot. Not.’ 1863). One character of .S'. Dilleniana 
and its var. palustris, which is not given in our Floras, is the violet 
anthers : in S. Holostea they yellow. 
This Middlesex plant is a very interesting addition to our flora, 
and as attention has now been directed to it we may expect to hear 
of its turning up in other localities, especially as Babington under 
S. glauca {Man. 58, 1874) says “plant usually glaucous. Flowers 
rarely solitary, petals sometimes much exceeding the calyx,” which 
suggests he has seen the two plants, unless indeed he has abstracted 
this from the remark of Koch (‘ Syn.’ 119, 1837) : “ variat intense 
glauca et viridis, floribus majoribus, et minoribus, petalis calycem 
acquantibus, et caule 1-2 floro, et 6-9 floro. Varietas fol. viridibus 
et caule 1-2 floro: S. Dilleniana, Moench.” See also a paper 
by F. N. Williams (‘Journ. Bot.’ p. 223, 1910), where he speaks 
of the Middlesex plant as the flowered plant; but I saw 
no small-flowered plant when I Avas there, nor is the specimen 
Avhich Mr. Williams kindly sent me of his gathering in Sept., 1909, 
a small-flowered one. It may be that the October plants of 
1910 had small floAvers ; if so it supports the contention that 
I have advanced, that this character is of no varietal value. It 
is a pleasing fact too that Dillenius, Avho did so much Avork for 
the British flora, should be commemorated in this plant. — G. 
Claridge Druce. This plant seems to deserve specific segre- 
gation from S. palustris, Retz. Besides the marked difference in 
foliage and in certain floral characters, its flowering season is 
very much later; Mr. Druce’s examples, though gathered on the 
last day of August, are barely in full bloom, and Mr. Williams 
