244 



NOTES ON BRITISH PLANTS.* 

 By Arthur Bennett, F.L.S. 



II.— CAREX. 



The following notes are given in the sequence of the 9th edition 

 of the Londo)t Catalor/iie, as they will tlnis be easier of reference : they 

 will perhaps help to explain some of the changes in nomenclature 

 tlierein made. Tiiey will also show the difficulty there is in deter- 

 mining with accuracy some of the species, especially in the vithfciris 

 section. It is useless to attempt to resolve the discord of opinion 

 as to what is a species, a variety, or a form ; but a tendency in 

 Scandinavian Floras to reduce many Friesian species to forms — 

 whether rightly, or not, I do not pretend to decide — may be noted 

 as one of the "direction posts" of the times. I Avill merely quote 

 one instance. Carex proU.va Fries (1842) is reduced by Hartman to 

 C. acuta var. prolixa (1843) ; and further degraded by Almquist in 

 Hartman's 11th ed. (1879) to C. acuta forma proUxa. Taken in 

 conjunction with the splitting of recent years, the above is an 

 object-lesson. 



Carex rupestris All. Fl. Ped. ii. 264 (1785). This seems much 

 more plentiful in W. Sutherland than the first record would seem 

 to intimate. Mr. Hanbury tells me it can be "pulled up in sheets 

 two feet across." 



C. MicROGLocHiN Wahl. Act. Holm, 140(1803). I should not be 

 surprised to hear that the plant that occurs in Dick's Caithness 

 locality is this, and not paucijiura ; but Mr. Hanbury informs me 

 that C. paucijiora occurs on Dunnet Links. 



C. DiSTicHA Huds. var. longibraoteata Schl. Cut. PI. Helv. ed. 4, 

 11 (1821). The name as it occurs here is specific. See Jount. 

 Bot. 1897, 145. 



C. ligerica Gay in Ann. Sc. Nat. ser. 2, t. x. 360 (1838). C. 

 armaria L. var. lii/erica. Richter makes this a hybrid, (\ arcnaria x 

 Schrcberi; Gay, Grenier & Godron, Nyman, and others, all call it a 

 species. If it is a hybrid (which I doubt), it can hardly be our 

 plant ; but the name was determined by Boeckeler. I should like 

 here to call the attention of British botanists to the valuable 

 series of notes contained in Gay's herbarium at Kew, not only 

 on the labels of the specimens, bat in the MSS. in the library; 

 it is strange that the French ever allowed such a splendid collection 

 to leave France. 



C. teretiuscula Good, in I'raiis. Linn. Soc. ii. 163 (1794). 

 C. teretiuscula var. crassior Hartm. Hand. Sk. Fl. ed. 4 (1843). 

 C. teretiuscula var. major Koch, Stjn. FL G. ed. 2, 867 (1844). 

 C. Fhrhartiann Hoppe, Cent. 207. C. diandra Schrk. Baier. Flora, 

 281 (1789), may be an earlier name for C. teretiuscula, but I have 

 not seen an authentic specimen. Richter has restored C. pseudo- 

 paradoxa S. Gibson, ''Phijtol. i. 53" (but the reference should be to 



See Jonrn. Bot. 1894, 364. 



