50 



SHORT NOTES. 



{vide Trans. Essex Field Club, vol. iii., p. 157), naturally suggests 

 the question. Does this fecundity extend to other dimorphic and 

 trimorphic heterostyled species ? Not being aware of any observa- 

 tions bearing upon the subject, I have lately seized such oppor- 

 tunities as have presented themselves for examining heterostyled 

 species, in order to endeavour to throw some light upon the matter. 

 Most of the observations given in the following table were made 

 whilst travelling in the United States of Canada, twice when 

 engines had broken down, and once whilst waiting for a train. 

 Observation No. 1 was made by Mr. John Gibbs, of Chelmsford 

 (Proc. Essex Field Club, vol. ii., p. 6) ; the observations combined 

 to form No. 9 were made by my friend, Mr. Ernest E. T. Seton, of 

 Toronto. Tlie only conclusion that can be safely drawn from an 

 examination of the tabular statement is that, so far as the details 

 contained in it are concerned, no general statement can be made 

 as to the preponderance of either one form or the other in the 

 species already examined. 



* This is the total result of eight different observations made around and 

 between Fort Pelly, N.W.T., and Carberry, Manitoba. 



EoBT. Miller Christy. 



New British and Irish Carices. — 1. Carex salina AVahlenberg 

 0. Kattetiatemis Fries (sp.) ! Caithness, Scotland, August, 1883, 

 ./. Grant, who writes that it is plentiful.- — 2. C. stricta Good., var. 

 turjom Fries (sp.) ! Cambridgeshire, Fryer, 1884. — 3. C. acuta L. 

 var. prolLva Fries (sp.). Norfolk, J. Priest, 1844, from H. (t. Olass- 

 poole. — 4. C. acuta L., var. qracilescens Almquist ! Shropshire, 

 W.E. Beckivith, 1884; Cambridgeshire, Fri/er, 1884.— 5. C. Good- 

 enovii Gay, var. junceUa Fr. Surrey, W. H. Beehij and A. 

 Bennett!; NortJi Lincoln, H. Searle, 1882!; Warwick, J. E. 



