404 
C. E. Moss. 
Parnassia palustris var. condensata Travis and Wheldon in 
Jourti. Bot., 254 (1912). This is the form seen in the damp dune- 
hollows near Southport. I do not think this is an endemic variety. 
I have seen what I believe to be the same form in similar situations 
in Brittany ; and I understand from Dr. Ostenfeld that it occurs in 
Denmark. Mr. J. Cosmo Melvill (fourn. Bot. 1, 376 (1912) ) 
contends that its characters are unstable, and that it should be 
reduced to a forma. Obviously, cultural experiments are indicated. 
Sedum anglicum Hudson FI. Angl. ed. 2, 196 (1778). Dr. 
Riibel informs me (in litt .) that the name Sedum album which 
appears in his charming account of the vegetation of Killarney (pp. 
54-55 (1912) should be 5. anglicum. Whether or not 5. album is 
indigenous in the British Isles is doubtful. 
Sedum acre L. (See pp. 356 and 359 (1912) ). It may well be 
that the common form in this country differs from that in central 
Europe ; but it is, in my opinion, much too early even to hint at its 
being one of “quite a large number of forms endemic in Britain.” 
Do Professor Graebner and Mr. Druce seriously maintain, at this 
early stage, that the new form does not occur, for example, in 
northern France ? However, until the plant has been described* 
one cannot state that one has seen it elsewhere, or that the common 
European form of the species is unknown in Great Britain and 
Ireland. 
CEnanthe jluviatilis Coleman in Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 1, 
xiii, t. 3, 188 (1844); in Eng. Bot. Suppl. t. 2944 (1848); in Webb 
and Coleman FI. Hertford, 369 (1849); Babington Manual, ed. 2, 
141 (1847); Gliick Biol, tend Morph, iii, Die Uferflora, 429 (1911) ); 
CE. phellandrium var. fluviatilis Babington Manual, ed. 1, 131 
(1843); [ Millefolium aquaticum Dillen in Ray Syn. ed. 3, 216 (1728)]. 
Professor Drude (p. 238 (1912) ) seems to regard this plant as of 
the same rank as the small varieties of Helianthemum, etc., which 
have been discussed in connection with this excursion ; but that is 
not the view of those botanists who have carefully studied Coleman’s 
plant. It may perhaps be arguable whether the plant is a species 
or a variety; but if it be reduced to a variety, it would be an un¬ 
commonly good variety, and consistency would demand the reduction 
of another hundred or more British species (exclusive of “ species ” 
of Rubus, Hieracium, Euphrasia, and the like) to varietal rank. In 
my opinion, the plant should remain as a species. Coleman studied 
it very carefully before naming it, and tested its constancy; his 
description is full and clear, and his figure accurate. 
