REPORT FOR 191O. 
567 
high. Does not this rather imply that his plant was a form of 
G. uhginosum ? ‘ Bab. Man.’ states that the latter turns blackish 
when dry ; but Smith in ‘ The English Flora ’ says it is “ of a fresh 
green which it retains when dry.” — J. A. Wheldon. I believe, 
correct, but material indifferent. I have always found that G. uligi- 
nosuJH dries fairly green, with proper care ; the G. palustre group 
turns more or less dark brown or even black. — E. S. Marshall. 
Any plants which Mr. Wheldon has received from the Club, which 
remain green when dry, are not G. Witheritigii^ Sm. Smith origin- 
ally described this plant in his ‘El. Brit.’ vol. i., p. 174 (1800), 
re-described and figured it in ‘E. B.’ t. 2206 (1810), and again 
described it in his ‘ Eng. Flo.’ vol. i., p. 200 (1824). It is the 
G. 77 iontanum^ With., no 7 i Linn. Smith’s statement that it turns 
brown in drying is in his ‘Eng. Flo.’ i. (p. 201). The phrase 
“ turning blackish when dry,” alluded to by Mr. Wheldon as ap- 
pearing in the ‘ Manual ’ (9th ed.), would seem to be placed 
under G. uliginosimi owing to some misapprehension, as it does 
not occur in any one of the first eight editions of that work, 
and is in contradiction to the state of the specimens in Babington’s 
herbarium at Cambridge. The plant I take for G. Withervigii 
is the 07 ily marsh bedstraw I have observed on the siliceous soils 
of the Pennines between Ingleborough and the Trent Valley 
(cf. Crump, in ‘Flo. Halifax,’ p. 52). The plant invariably 
turns dark on drying, has “ leaves ” 4-6 (Smith says five) in a 
whorl, a rough stem, and a smooth fruit. I have no doubt that 
it is Smith’s plant. It cannot be a hybrid of G. pahestre and G. 
7 iligi 7 ios 7 i 77 i, as it occurs very abundantly on the soils and in the 
district mentioned, where both these species appear to be absent. 
It cannot be placed under G. uligmosic 77 i on account of the number 
of leaves in a whorl, and on account of the fruit. It seems to be 
distinct enough to be treated as a species, as Smith maintained. 
Smith (‘ Engl. Flo.’ p. 201) says that “ Professor Hooker judged this 
‘a very doubtful sjoecies,’ but without seeing the plant, which may 
well excuse his mistake.” Bentham (‘ Handb.’ p. 275, 1858), 
erroneously places G. W ithermgii under G. ultgi 7 tosu 77 i ; and it is 
possible that Smith’s criticism of Hooker is also applicable to 
Bentham.— C. E. Moss. The above note has been submitted to 
Mr. Wheldon, and he says, “ I entirely agree.” — C. E. M. 
Galui77t palustre, L., forma [ref. No. 6201]. Grendon Under- 
wood, Bucks, May 1910. From its appearance this plant at first 
sight suggested a hybrid of palustre x uligi 7 iosu 77 i, but a closer 
examination failed to reveal any traces of the presence of the latter 
species. It is not G. Witheri 7 igii, Sm., because the stem is not 
rough, and the panicle is too diffuse. It appears to be separated 
from palustre on one side as elo 7 igatu 77 i is on the other 3 that is 
smooth-stemmed, 7 iarrow-\eQ.' 7 e.<^ (in sixes), each leaf flat, 5-8 mm. 
