on the Britifh Species of Carex. 141 
flower or two at the bafe of the fpike, the capfules of which very 
much refemble thofe of the Swedifh capitata. In Uvedalès Herba- 
rium Rayenum, vol. 12. fol. 68. n. 5. and in Mr. RAI TER 
rium, to which I had accefs, through her Majesry’s moft graci- 
ous condefcenfion, who is now the poffeffor of it; are fpecimens of 
the female dioica, with feveral male flowers at the top of the fpike. 
"The leaves in both fpecies are exactly the fame; the ftyle in each 
has two ftigmata. I have feen capfules in paca where there is no 
vifible ferrulation on the edges. Swedifh fpecimens of capitata are 
in the rich herbaria of Sir 57/655 Banks and Dr. Smiih. All my ideas 
of the:plant are taken entirely from them. 
The fynonyms of Ray and Morifom, which Linneus quotes for 
capitata, are undoubtedly to be referred to C. dizica. He himfelf re- 
ferred them to it in F7 Sueczca. In the places fo particularly men- 
tioned by thofe. ep C. dice and that only has ever been 
found. se + wy 
-The different figures. of Michelius Mens led. into fome error.—I 
do not hefitate to fay, that the female figure No. r. is carelefsly 
drawn: its being reprefented with three ftigmata, inftead of two 
which it ought to have (as is evident from a fpecimen in Mr. 
Lighifoot’s herbarium), is a fufficient proof of it. This is that Irifh 
variety mentioned by Ray, in his Synopfs, p. 425, n. 66. In Michelius’s 
figure, n. 2. no male flowers are to be feen at the fummit: neither 
are they in Morifon’s figure, n. 36. Thefe figures are both very de- 
cent repréfentations of the female dioica : they bear no fimilarity to 
the fpecimens of capitata mentioned before. | 
Scheuchzer’s figure feems like pulicaris, rather than diea. It is 
poble he may have confounded the t two together, as any one 
might do in their infant ftate. _ 
Upon the whole, therefore, I can fee no reafon why C. chars 
fhould be continued as a Britifh fpecies, and therefore have ex- 
cluded it, 
I do 
