Journal of Proceedings. 
lxiii 
packet of mosses among which the specimen was detected by Mr. Mitten 
bore no label, and the only clue to the locality where it was gathered lay 
in the fact that the Zygodon forsteri was wrapped in a billhead with a 
Hastings address upon it. 
“Until a few years ago, therefore, when Miss I. Gifford found the plant 
at Mineliead, no exact locality was known in Britain for this species. In 
the locality pointed out to me by that lady the moss grew on the top 
of an old stump behind a gate in a field, and bore some resemblance 
to a Pottia, for which it was at first mistaken by Miss Gifford, being sub¬ 
sequently recognised by Mr. H. Boswell, of Oxford, to w T hom she sent it. 
“I found the moss in Epping Forest on the root of an old tree where 
water collects in little depressions among the roots. It seems to prefer 
damp timber ; in size and habit of growth it resembles Tortidci viuralis , 
for which it might easily be mistaken if the short seta and furrowed cap¬ 
sule were not noticed. Neither at Minehead nor in Epping Forest did I 
see more than a single patch, so that it does not appear to be a gregarious 
species like Z. virulissimus and Z. conoideus. The leaves in the moist 
state are remarkable for their rigid, dark green, succulent appearance. On 
the Continent also this plant appears to be a rare southern species. It 
has been found growing on the poplar, cork, oak, holly, and elm. I did 
not notice on what tree it occurred in Epping Forest, but believed to have 
been beech.” 
With one exception the phanerogamous plants observed do not call for 
special notice, that exception being, curiously enough, also a re-discovery. 
Near the railway station at Woodford Mr. W. W. Beeves met with a plant 
of Senecio viscosus, L., a very local and generally a rare species. It was 
recorded in 1771 for Woodford in Warner’s ‘Plantse Woodfordienses’ as 
the “ Cotton Groundsel or Strong-scented Groundsel, in sandy ground 
not uncommon.” Edward Forster in his paper, “ Corrections of erroneous 
habitats given to British Plants ” (‘ Phytologist ’ ii. 611), says this was 
“ a blunder of Warner’s ; not to be found at or near Woodford.” Gibson, 
in his ‘Flora of Essex,’ only gives one station for it, “ Syme’s Farm, 
near Epping,” and adds “ a state of S. sylvaticus was probably the plant 
meant by Warner and others.” Mr. Beeves’s specimen was without 
any doubt correctly named, having been submitted to the Kew authorities. 
It was particularly interesting to find the plant, after having been lost 
and doubted for over a century, still growing near the spot where possibly 
it was first gathered by Warner. 
Many of our microscopists were actively engaged in “ pond-hunting ” 
during the day, but in the absence of any detailed reports it may be 
interesting to append a list of Infusoria met with by Mr. Saville Kent at 
the previous “Foray” (October 1st, 1881), which unfortunately escaped 
record at the time. The species were found in association with Myrio- 
pliyllum (Water-Milfoil) in ponds on the Epping New Boad:— 
Flagellata. — Codosiga botrytis, Ehr., Salpingceca amphoridiuvi, J.-Clk., 
Dendromonas virgaria , Weisse, Anthrophysa vegetans , Mull. 
Cilio-Flagellata. — Peridinium tabulatum, Ehr. 
Ciliata.— Vorticella nebulifera , Ehr., V. campanula , Ehr., Vaginicola 
crystallina, Ehr., Halteria grandinella , Mull., Stentor polymorphus, Miill., 
Gothurnia imberbis, Elir., Ophrydium sessile , S. K., rare; this species was 
