84 The Irish Naturalist. April, 



dates are 1853, 1S54, or 1858. But did Kirk collect it also in J.ougli 

 Corrib .' Or were all his specimeiis from Maaiii .- 



Evidence on the question as to Avhether there were one or two stations 

 may be sought in the specimens of Dr. David IMoores gathering which 

 are preserved at Kdinburgh and Dublin (two in the former collection, 

 three in the latter). On all these sheets the locality is again simply 

 "Lough Corrib,'" though on two of the Dublin sheets (More Herbarium), 

 " Maam " and " River Bealnabrack, near Maam .-" have been added — in 

 the latter case in Miss F. INI. More's handwriting. One of the Edinburgh 

 labels bears the legend " growing in deep water, Lough Corrib, Co. 

 Galway," which suggests the lake rather than the river. Only two of 

 Moore's labels (most of which are in his own handwriting) are daterl : 

 these are dated Sept., 1853, the same month and year as several of Kirk's 

 gatherings. 



But though the labels do not help us much as regards locality, Mr. 

 Frj'er adduces important evidence from the specimens : — 



"The Edinburgh specimens support the view that I had formed from 

 your Dublin set. That is, that the Lough Corrib specimens i:;rriV in /wo 

 distinct locatitics." "In the genus roiamogcton the individuals are .so sus- 

 ceptible to local conditions that in the greater part of the .species every 

 ditch and pool has its local form.'" And, later, he writes:— "After a 

 final look I am inclined to think that the 4 sheets in Dr. Moore's .set 

 probably grew in a different station from that which furnished the recent 

 gatherings of the plant. All I have seen or possess from Maam have a 

 different look about the floating leaves." ]\Ir. Frver oroes on to suqfo-est 

 that quite possil)ly a separate patch of the plant, not more than a hun- 

 dred yards distant, n)ight account for the differences observed ; but in 

 view of all the evidence he urges the retention of Lough Corrib as a 

 separate station until further information is forthcoming. 



The Lough Xeagli record in Mr. Fryer's work rests, as already stated, 

 on a specimen in the Edinburgh Herbarium. The label, in Dr. INIoore's 

 handwriting, runs: — " Potamogeton .species nearest P. hetenophyllus .- 

 but different apparently. Growing in rather deep water in IvOugh Xeagh, 

 Co. Antrim. — D.M." INIr. Fryers re-examination of this .specimen 

 CO!: firms his opinion that it is /'. AVr/vV— an opinion shared by Dr. 

 Bo.swell, as witnessed by the pencil note " sparganiifolius Laest. J.B.vS." 

 on the label, and 1)y the following sentence by him in i\\e /oiirnal of 

 Botany, 1S75, p. 376 :— " In looking over the Edinburgh Herbarinm I saw 

 a fine specimen of the P, sj^arganiifoliits similar to the INIaam plant, with 

 a label stating that it was gathered in Loch Neagh bv Dr. D. Moore, of 

 Glassnevin," a record which, by the way, is not referred to in Stewart 

 and Corry's '-Flora of the North-ea.st of Ireland."' Mr. Fryer has 

 submitted this specimen to a searching examination and comparison 

 with the other .sheets, and his conclusion is that there is grave susj^icion 

 of some transfer of labels having taken place. Comparing it with the 

 Edinburgh specimen labelled in Moore's handwriting " Potamogeton 

 longifolius. Growing in deep water, Ivough Corrib, Co. Galway, Sep., 

 1S53. D. INIoore,"' he writes, '• I am strongly of opinion that the two 



