578 'I'HK botanical exchange club of IHE BRITISH ISLES. 
Symphytum peregrinum, Ledeb. In view of the remarks made 
as to the identity of this comfrey, I send a copious supply of 
specimens in several stages in the hope of getting a decision as 
to its proper nomenclature. Near the stables, and on the outskirts 
of a wood on the north side of Southam House, between Prestbury, 
Bishop’s Cleeve, near Cheltenham, North-east Gloucestershire, v.-c. 
33. Flowering cymes, June 2 and 3; fruiting cymes, July 25; 
root leaves. Sept. 28 and Oct. 15, 1910. The October leaves 
had the thicker portion of their petioles sliced off, and, in con- 
sequence, they have dried better than the September leaves. It 
agrees with examples so named which I collected near Grange 
Mill, in the Via Gallia, Derbyshire, July 23, 1878, and June 26, 
1880, and from Wiltshire, near Limpley Stoke, July 24, 1893, 
which were distributed to the members. The Derbyshire plant 
is fertile, and young seedlings have been frequently jiroduced in 
Manchester and Sl Anne’s; but none were noticed in the Derby- 
shire plants cultivated at Cleeve Hill this year. — Charles Bailey. 
Yes ; what at one time we called S. asperrimwn, a species which 
also grows (in one spot at least) in E. Gloucester. In S. peregrinum 
the calyx lobes are sub-acute : in the true N. asperrimum they are 
quite blunt, and the flowers are a truer blue. — H. J. Riddelsdell. 
Pulmonaria officinalis, Linn. [ref. No. 79]. Woods near 
Kirkliston, Linlithgow, v.-c. 84, April 25, 1910. — McTaggart 
Cowan, Jun. 
Myosotis sylvatica, Hoffm. [ref. No. 54]. Newbattle, Dalkeith, 
v.-c. 83, May 21, 1910. — McTaggart Cowan, Jun. 
Myosotis collina, G. F. Hoffm., var. Mittenii, Baker. Little- 
stone-on-Sea, Kent, E., May, 1910. This grew in immense 
quantities over a wide range of sandy coast, but the variety is not 
mentioned in the ‘ Flora of Kent ’ ; and I think some of these pale- 
flowered plants may be referred to it ; but while some were dis- 
tinctly bracteate others were not, and therefore while there was a 
distinct look about the plant, the presence or absence of bracts does 
not appear to afford a character of varietal value. Th\s Afyosotis m:\y, 
however, prove to be a distinct form or variety from type colli na, as 
the colour of the fresh flowers is very distinct and was quite uniform. 
As in some other cases, I have sent a representative gathering. It 
would have been easy to have selected purely bracteate forms, but 
that would have given a false idea of the plant, and I have followed 
the same plan in the so-called variety of Veronica officinalis and 
Orchis maculata, var. &c. — G. Claridge Druce. .Some of the 
specimens sent agree with the description of this variety. But Mr. 
J. G. Baker told me some years ago that he had given it up, as 
being of too slight a character. — H. J. Riddelsdell. The lowest 
