4$2 
C. E. Moss. 
one, of a number of equivalent biological forms, ought to be 
regarded as the “ type ” of the species. 
The combination g P C named S. mcenchii by Magnier is not, 
as Magnier implies, the combination originally named 5. dilleniana 
by Moench : this, as shown by Moench’s description and figure, is 
g P c. 
Sagina scotica Druce in Rep.Bot. Exch. Chib for 1911, 14 (1912); 
in New Phyt. xi, 358 (1912); 5 . procumbens x saginioides Ostenfeld 
in New Phyt. xi.. 117 (1912). Roots of this critical plant, trans¬ 
planted from Ben Lawers, have been grown in my garden. The 
plant spreads in the vegetative manner described by Dr. Ostenfeld. 
I do not, however, agree with Mr. Druce that its petals are “ much 
longer” than the sepals: the petals and sepals are about of the same 
length ; and the description of the rhizome as “ subligneous ” is not 
very happy. The plant has produced seeds freely ; and these I have 
sown. It will be interesting to observe whether or not any of the 
characters show signs of segregation, as one would expect if, on Dr. 
Ostenfeld’s supposition, the plant is a hybrid. 
In connection with the suggestion of hybridity, I think that too 
much importance has been attached to the matter of seed-fertility. 
There are so many hybrids, even of species not very closely related 
(e.g., Geum rivcile x urbanum) which are fertile, and not a few good 
species (e.g., Ranunculus fcaria ) which are at least partially sterile 
in certain districts, that the matter of seed-fertility has really very 
little bearing on the question of hybridity. 
Altogether there have been three suggestions as to the nature 
of the plant. I suggest that a fourth needs consideration. Is the 
plant a variety of 5. procumbens ? If so, it is indeed a striking one; 
and, in any case, it is most curious that Scottish botanists have 
never named the plant before, though some of them allege that 
they have always been perfectly familiar with it. The view that the 
plant may be a variety of 5. procumbens is suggested by the fact 
that it has a pronounced central rosette of leaves, as in this species. 
Geranium robertianum L. Some discussion (p. 311 (1911); 118 
(1912); 358 (1912)) has taken place regarding certain small-flowered 
plants allied to this species. I suggest that some (though probably 
not all) of these forms are hybrids of G. robertianum and G. lucidum. 
Last May, the British Vegetation Committee made an excursion in 
Leigh Woods, near Bristol. Here, growing between G. robertianum 
and G. lucidum was a small-flowered plant which is doubtless one of 
the varieties of G. robertianum “forma” [=“race”] purpureum 
