83i NOTES ON SOME BRITISH CARICES. 



much longer and usually stricter bracts, and usually the much 

 duller color of the spikes. Newfoundland to Pennsylvania and 

 westward to Montana, Williams and S. Utah, Parry. Usually 

 appears distinct from the species, but its relationship to var. 

 cijperoides is very close and that variety clearly belongs to C. Jlava.'" 



Page 37. C. saxatilis L., C. jnilla Good. — Prof. Bailey observes: — 

 ** I am entirely unable to draw clue lines of separation between the 

 various forms of C. saxatilis, C. vesicaria, and C. monile.'" With 

 reference to this a note by Laestadius, in his * Loca Parell. Plant.' 

 1832, may be worth quoting: — ^^ Carex j)ulla varietas vesicarim e 

 longinquo esse potest, at Carex rotimdata magis aperti cum C. 

 anipullacea conjiuit'' (p. 289). 



Page 38. I doubt the specimens from Colorado and Utah being 

 the same as C. Grahami from Scotland. Prof. Bailey observes : — 

 ** It is possible that future observers may be able to detect varietal 

 differences between the plants of Scotland and America." 



Page 39. I agree w4th Prof. Bailey that C. vesicaria var. dichroa 

 Ands. is rather a rostrata var. than one of vesicaria. 



Page 56. C. JiUformis L. — Prof. Bailey describes the Central- 

 European plant as a variety (v. australis), taking the American and 

 Scandinavian plants to be the same as the type, and I suppose our 

 plant also. 



Page 63. Carex fasca All. Fl. Ped. 2, p. 269, 1785; C. polygama 

 Schk. Biedgr. 84, t. 76, 1801 ; C. Buxbaumi Wahl. Kongl. Acad. 

 Handl. 24, p. 163, 1803. 



This is earlier than C. subulata Schum. En. PI. Saell. 1801." 

 Suggested by Mr. Druce. Bot. Ex. Club Eep. 1888, p. 237. 



Carex bipartita All (1785), is Kobresia caricina Will. "Allioni's 

 figure of this plant is not characteristic, yet the specimens are 

 unmistakable, and their history is clear. In Balbis' herb, at Turin, 

 the same plant is labelled D. bipartita.'' See under C. lagopina 

 Wahl. in Journ. Bot. 1887, p. 336. 



Page 65. Prof. Bailey considers that the varieties infuscata, 

 lutosa, and jmdica of C. rigida Good., are '• apparently mere 

 incidental forms." 



*' C. rigida v. inferalpina Laest., is C. vulgaris v. hyperborea 

 Boott. = C. hyperborea Drejer." The confusion with C. hyperborea 

 Drej. has been great; the true plant is only given as Faroen and 

 Icelandic by Nyman ; but Drejer, in his ' Eevisio ' (1841), says, 

 ** Lapponia, Laestad ! in herb. Hornem." He does not, ho^vever, 

 make any observation in his paper which would connect Laes- 

 tadius' s inferalpina with his hyperborea ; yet Laestadius had de- 

 scribed his plant in 1832, the paper, however, was not published 

 until 1839 (Loca Parell. Plant, p. 287), sub C. saxatilis, where he 

 says it approaches C. aquatilis v. siibacuta. The name of hyperborea 

 has been applied to forms of aquatilis Wahl. and limula Fries. 

 Andersson (Cyper. Scand.), gives no note to connect the above, but 

 observes under hyperborea, " Forma latifolia, quae etiam alpes 

 summas inabitat, C. rigida, C. limula, et aquatilis epigejis maxima 

 cognitae ; altera angustifolia C. vidgari et C. aquat. sphagnophula non 

 dissimilis." 



