576 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES. 
a point which Mr. Beeby considered very important. The Leaf-lobes 
are longer than usual, but mostly patent. Correct, though not 
quite typical in foliage. — Edward S. Marshall. 
Sonchus oleraceus, Linn., vox. glandu/osus, Coss. and Germ. [ref. 
No. 31 1]. Garden weed, Underdown, Ledbury, v.-c. 36 Hereford, 
August 19, 1910. — S. H. Bickham. Yts,glandulosus, which Cosson 
and Germain described as a sub-variety. — G. Claridge Druce. 
Lactuca saligna, L. Sea-shore and waste places, T.eigh-on-Sea, 
Essex. September nth, 1910. — A. B. Jackson. 
Kahnia g/auca, Aiton. Chobham Common, Surrey, June 19, 
1910, the locality where it grows in the midst of a very wet bog, 
recorded by me in the ‘Journal of Botany,’ 1910, p. 205. — C. E. 
Britton. 
Campanula persicifolia, L. On a common near Newbury, 
Berks, July 1910. Here it grows among furze bushes and looks 
quite native, but Euphorbia Cyparissias is found in large quantities 
on the same common, although not with the Campanula. I can 
find no trace of a cottage or any building here to account for the 
presence of either plant. Mr. J. R. W. B. 'romlin sent it me to 
name. Here if not native, it is completely naturalised, and if, as 
I am told, the Gloucestershire locality is destroyed, it makes the 
discovery more interesting. — G. Claridge Druce. 
Eimonium binervosum, C. E. Sahn. Border of Saltmarsh, near 
Preesall, W. Lancs. (60), July 1910. Although much smaller, this 
seems to resemble the Hilbre Island plant which has been referred 
to L. intermedium. — J. A. Wheldon. I should call this typical 
binervosum. I do not understand the arrangement in ‘ Lond. Cat.’ 
ed. X. I gave reasons in ‘ Journ. Bot.’ 1903, p. 70, why the name 
intermediian seemed too ambiguous to use. The variety procerum 
equals var. intermedium pro parte. — C. E. Salmon. 
Limonium . Specimens originally collected near Hun- 
stanton, and grown in the Botanic Gardens at Cambridge, are 
sent by Mr. R. I. Lynch. — C. E. Moss. Mr. Lynch has sent 
some interesting sheets of this species, showing two forms, a “ tall ” 
and a “dwarf.” The latter term is, however, not very distinc- 
tive, as the two “ dwarf” specimens on my sheet are 16 in. and 17 in. 
high respectively, while the “ tall ” example sent me measures 22 in. 
high. Mr. Lynch remarks that these two forms (both from Hun- 
stanton) keep distinct in cultivation in the Cambridge Botanic 
Garden, and differ in size of leaf, general appearance, and time of 
flowering (by a little), besides the size cliaractcr. I have grown 
these two forms (Mr. Lynch kindly sending me roots) in my garden 
