Critical Plants noticed on the Excursion. 407 
As pointed out by Mr. J. Britten ( Journ . Bot. viii, 291 (1870) ) 
there are two fruit-forms of V. oxycoccus, one with spherical the 
other with pyriform fruits. 1 have seen pyriform fruits on the 
large-fruited form only, and near the Cheshire locality mentioned 
by Mr. Britten. 
Gentian a nivalis L. — It is well known that the British form of 
this, gathered on Ben Lawers, is smaller than the alpine form. In 
addition to this, the Ben Lawers plant has rather broader leaves, 
and shorter and broader petals. In Swiss specimens, the petals 
are often less than half as broad as long ; whereas in the Ben Lawers 
plant, they are about two thirds as broad as long. The Ben Lawers 
form here described is well depicted in Eng. Bot. ed. 1, t. 896. 
It may be that the Scottish form is an instance of the local 
endemism of a small variety; but before it is named, I hope it will 
be ascertained whether or not it occurs abroad, and whether or not 
the Swiss form occurs in Scotland. 
Laminin galeobdolon Crantz Stirp. Austr. ed. 2, 262 (1769) ; 
Galeopsis galeobdolon L. Sp. PL 580 (1753); Hudson FI. Angl. 226 
(1762); Miller Gard. Diet. ed. 8, no. 4 (1768); Galeobdolon luteum 
Hudson FI. Angl. ed. 2, 258 (1778). Persoon ( Syn. Plant, ii, 122 
(1807) ) briefly characterized two forms of this ; and earlier names 
above cited would appear to be simple synonyms of Galeopsis 
galeobdolon L. Hudson’s name, Galeobdolon luteum, is valid if the 
plant is removed from the genus Laminin into Galeobdolon ; but I 
do not think it ought to be cited as referring to any particular 
segregate of the species. Persoon’s first plant, his Galeob¬ 
dolon vulgare, is briefly diagnosed by the words “fol. omnibus ovatis, 
involucro 4-phyllo,” and Smith and Curtis are cited. The second 
plant, G. vulgare var. montanum, is summarised by the words “ fol. 
summis lanceolatis, involucr. 6-8 phyllo.” * It is usually assumed 
that the British plants are the var. montanum, in spite of Persoon’s 
allocation of synonyms ; but British botanists (see Syme Eng. Bot. 
vii, 77 (1867) and Williams Prodr. FI. Brit, i, 393 (1910) ) have 
always assumed that the two plants were unworthy of recognition. 
This may have been because there is only one form in this country, 
as Dr. Ostenfeld suggests ; but if so, the form is rather variable. 
It may be that further observation will reveal the existence of the 
second form also as a British plant. Syme (loc. cit.) adds that the 
English plant occasionally has “ the bracts all broad and similar to 
the leaves (G. luteum Reichb.).” This remark applies to a plant 
drawn for the Cambridge British Flora by Mr. E. W. Hunnybun, 
