1 66 The hi sh Naturalist September, 



There is considerable diversity of opinion amongst authors 

 as to the standing of C. irrigtia, and as to the characters best 

 fitted to distinguish it from C. limosa, which in many points 

 it closely resembles. Amongst modern writers the prevailing 

 tendency appears to be in favour of admitting it to full specific 

 rank, though some earlier authorities have reduced it to the 

 position of a variety, or even of an alpine form, of C. limosa. 



Both in the New World and in the Old, the distribution of 

 C. irrigua is a very wide one. On the European continent it 

 appears to be decidedly northern and alpine in its range, 

 ascending to upwards of 7,000 feet in the Alps. I have but 

 scanty information as to its vertical range in Great Britain. 

 Specimens from Perthshire, sent me by my friend the Rev. K. S. 

 Marshall, are labelled as ranging there to 1,300 feet. It 

 seems not improbable that some of the numerous extant Irish 

 records for C limosa may be referable to its closely similar 

 congener, C. irrigua, and I would venture to suggest to Irish 

 botanists a re-examination of any herbarium specimens 

 labelled C. limosa to which the} 7 may have access, especially 

 such as have been gathered in North Ireland. 



Mr. Arthur Bennett, to whom I have submitted specimens 

 of the Parkmore plant, agrees with me in referring it to 

 Cm irrigua, though he finds the leaves unusually narrow. In 

 the character drawn from the leaf-form, the Irish plant varies 

 considerably, the leaves in many of my specimens being quite 

 as broad as in Scotch examples ; but in no instance do they 

 approach to the sharply-keeled type characteristic of C. limosa. 

 Amongst the numerous distinctions of greater or less im- 

 portance which, taken together, render it by no means 

 difficult to separate the two species, there is one of which no 

 mention is made by any of the authors I have found time to 

 consult. The fruits of C. irrigua are distinctly stalked, while 

 those of C. limosa are quite sessile on the spike rachis. This 

 is true of all the specimens I have examined, and it would be 

 interesting to know whether it holds good generally for the 

 two plants. Mr. Bennett is of opinion that the Dorset record 

 for C. irrigua, given in the second edition of Topographical 

 Botany, and accepted by Hooker in the third edition of his 

 Student's Flora, is a very doubtful one, and should probably 

 be referred to C. limosa. We cannot, then, argue from any 



