Jome Plants difecvered in Scotland, ` 289 
FK. humifufa Y never found but upon very high mountains, and 
under wet fhady rocks, where the 7. /erpyliifolia never occurs; be- 
fides I have cultivated them both together in the garden for three 
years, and they always kept very different. Ds. Gif: App. p. C7. 
has a V. nummulariz folio, and Pluk. Phyt. tab. 233. f. 4. V. pra- 
tenfis nummulariz folio, flore cœruleo; but I doubt neither of 
them is the X. humifu/a. 
EriopHoruM polyftachion. Culmis teretibus, foliis planis, fpicis 
pedunculatis. Linn. Spec. Plant. 76, Fail. Parif. tab. 16. f. 2. 
Leers Fi. Herb. t. x. f. 5. The figure given by Vaillant is a 
good one. 
E. polyfachion of Hudf. Lightf. Curtis, Withering, Se. is not the 
above. 
I four i this firít in bogs in North: mptonfhire, afterwards near 
Dunftable, ire, and in Yorkíhire, Cumberland, and very 
commonly in Scotland. 
EriopHorvm anguftifolium. | Culmis teretibus, foliis canaliculato- 
triquetris, fpicis pedunculstis. Hof. FJ. Deuchland. p. 19. 
Vaill. Parif. tab. 16. f. 1. Curtis, Flor. Lond. 
This is our common Eriophorum, and has been miftaken. for the 
E. polvfiachion of Linn. Linnæus, no doubt, confounds the two 
together, and refers to the figure in Fail. tab. 16. f. 1. only asa 
variety of his polvflachion; but if he had ever feen both plants to- 
gether, I have no doubt but he would have made them diftinct 
Ípecies. 
The following particulars may ferve to fhew in what this differs 
from the E. polyflachion. 
1. The root of that is not creeping.—2. The culmasis very ereét.— 
Vor. 1I, Pp T tbe. 
