THE BOTANICAL HISTORY OF ANGUS. 327 



original iintive of tliis oountry, but has perliaps been imported with 

 grain. 



Sparfja niiim natans o;ro\vs in pools of stai^nant water a mile east from 

 Forfar. According to Hudson, it is a variety of his Sparganium siwplex, 

 bnt there can be little doubt that they are perfectly distinct species. 



Ccirex limosa likeways grows near tlie same place. It is said in the 

 'Flora Scotica ' to grow near Crief; but tlie figure referred to by Mr. 

 Lightfoot evidently represents the Curex panicen, as has already been ob- 

 served in the ' Botanical Arrangement.' 



Salix arenaria, of Lightfoot, I observed plentifully in loose sandy 

 ground near Montrose. It is, however, perfectly distinct from the plant 

 so called by Linnpeus, as appears from comparing it with that author's 

 description. The S. arenaria, of Linnseus, is about the height of a man, 

 but this plant is only about 10 inches in length and lies close to the 

 ground. As we know the- vast changes produced by a diversity of soil on 

 this genus of plants, which iiave never yet ijeen systematically arranged, 

 I am not altogether certain whether this plant may not be a variety of the 

 S. repens, but I am rather inclined to believe them specifically distinct. 



I was informed that the Eqiiisdum hi/ewale grows in the western part 

 of Angus. It is inserted in the ' Flora Scotica,' but no place of growth 

 mentioned. 



Filnlaria glohuUfera I observed in ground that is overflowed in the 

 winter, near Belmont. It is likeways inserted by Mr. Lightfoot ; but 

 neither authority given nor place of growth mentioned. 



With these remarks I beg leave to conclude my paper, which, it must be 

 owned, in very few parts admits of discussion ; on this account I should 

 certainly not have presumed to lay it before the Society, had I not thoutrht 

 that the narration of facts of such especially as tend to illustrate in any 

 degree the natural history of the country which we inhabit, was perfectly 

 consonant with the views of this institution. 



[The "authority," several times mentioned in the above essay, is doubt- 

 less George Don the elder. It is probable that he was Kobert Brown's 

 companion in some of his excursions. In Headrick's ' General View of the 

 Agriculture of Angus' (1813), Don published an "account of the native 

 plants " of the eountry ; Galium erectiiin and Tiirrilis glabra (see above) 

 are both included in this list, and he there (p. 20) claims the discovery of 

 Eriophorum alpinuw, in 1791, for himself, adding that it was " the first 

 and only time it has been found in Great Britain ; he also mentions that 

 ScJioenus Mariacun formerly gi'cw there, but does not mention Lysinuichia 

 thyrsifora, which Brown collected wilii the others. This may perhaps in- 

 dicate that the two botanists indtipendently found species in tlie same 

 year. In the 15ritish Museum iierbarium, however, are specimens of the 

 Eriuphoruin with a ticket in Brown's hand, running thus, " Shell Marie 

 Moss of Restcnet, a mile east of Forfar, July, 1 793 . . . . R. Brown in com- 

 pany with George Hon." This does not tally witii Don's remark about 

 "the first and only time;" and it is possiijle that the species was really 

 collected by l^rown and Don ii\ company, in 1791, the date " 1793 " on 

 Brown's ticket being an accident, (\w. perhaps to having l)ren written 

 long after the date, as the writing ieems to indicate. — IL. I'.] 



