i) 
72 LHESESSEX NATURALIST. 
TRIFOLIUM pumilum supinum flosculis longis albis. Rai Syn, 327 
TRIFOLIUM (subtervaneum) capitulis villosis subquinquefloris, involucro 
centrali reflexo rigido, fructum involvente Huds, Fl, 286, 
Classis Linnet Diadelphia Decandria. 
Dwarf Trefoil. 
Found in Wansted Park, near the garden gate plentifully. 
It flowers in May. 
TURRITIS vulgaris ramosa Ratt Syn. 294. 
ARABIS (thaliana) foliis petiolatis lanceolatis integerrimis Hudsoni Fl. 254. 
Classis Linnei Tetradynamia Siliquosa, 
Codded Mouse Ear. 
On walls, voofs, and in dry fields common, 
It flowers in May. 
Typua palustris media Rait Syn. 436. 
Typua (angustifolia) foliis semicylindricis spica mascula feminiaque re- 
motis Hudsoni Fl, 345. 
Classis Linnet. Monoecia Triandria. 
Narrow leaved Cat’s Tail. 
Found on a bog in the woods near Salter’s Buildings 1 plenty. 
It flowers in July. 
Vicia Rait Syn. 320. 
VICcIA (sativa) leguminibus eau: subbinatis erectis, foliolis retusis, 
stipulis notatis Hudsoni Fl. 2 
Classis Linnet Diadelphia Decnates 
Common Vetch or Tare. 
In fields among corn and in hedges common. 
It flowers in May and June. 
A slip pasted in the fly-leaf bears a MS. note as follows :— 
“In this copy is found I think the very earliest record (here in 
MS.) of the Cytopteris [sic] regia as growing upon that well-known 
wall near Leyton. mem.the approximate date of these MS. Notes 
may I think be fixed by that at p. 105 (Listera mdus avis) where 
we find May 28 1778 as the the [sic] day on which this rare plant 
was observed by the writer”; and on the interleaf facing page 
105 the manuscript annotation which records Ophrys nidus avis 
(given above) has a gloss running thus, “ the ‘ Sale ’—a wood of 
small extent at Hale End still known 1840 by that name. W.P.” 
The writer of both these notes is quite certainly William Pamplin, 
the botanist-publisher of 45 Frith Street, Soho Square, .who 
published Gibson’s Flora of Essex in 1862 ; comparison of known 
examples of Pamplin’s caligraphy with fhe present volume Liles 
no doubt on the point. 
Comparison of the MS. annotations with the printed “ Addi- 
tions”’ of 1784 shows that there exists an almost complete 
identity between the two lists of plants; all the new records 
