NOTES ON CAREX. 



247 



of which I should have cloubtecl. I say this to show the difficulty 

 there is in naming plants of this section with certainty. Tims at 

 p. 19 of his able paper on "The Types of various Species of the 

 Genus Carcv" (1889), Prof. Bailey remarks under ('. variabilis 

 "nov. sp.": " T'. rt(^»rta7<i' is marked by its abundance of compara- 

 tively broad and long leaves and bracts, the solid spikes [the italics 

 are mine] , very broad perigynia, and minor characters." Now in 

 our montane form of aquatilis the spikes are not only much attenu- 

 ated below, but even often interrupted (just as in his var. elatior of 

 C. variabilis) ; and SO are Swedish specimens from Jemtland (Dr. 

 Abiiqiiist) ; so that that character will not suffice to separate aijuatilis. 

 He certainly allows 'that the American material (of aquatilis) "is 

 yet scant"; and at p. 60 remarks: "It is not certain that the 

 American plant is the same as the European." I have seen what 

 I believe to be aquatilis from Canada (I exclude <'. stans here). And 

 in Scotland we have forms of rifjida that come so close to aquatilis 

 that it is not easy to separate them in a dried state ; certainly it is 

 more difficult than to separate Goodenowii and rigida. 



In ed. 8 of the London Catalogue a var. inferalpina Laest. was 

 introduced on faith of specimens so named by Dr. Almquist from 

 the Clova table-land. Prof. Bailey in his paper considered that this 

 exactly represented C. hijperborea Drejer {Rer. Crit. Car. Bar. 461 

 (1841) ) ; a plant that has been split up into three parts, and divided 

 between salina, liniula, and epigejos Hartm. (uon Fries). If Prof. 

 Bailey is right (and I believe he is from the specimens I have seen), 

 so I believe was Almquist, and that our plant is as good luj/ierborea 

 as that of Lapland. In the 9th ed. that name was left out (from 

 the uncertainty then felt), but meanwhile I had seen specimens that 

 I thought must be named ('. liniula Fr. [Suvwi. Veg. Sca7id. 229 

 (1846) ). If we take the plate of Fl. Daniva, it certainly points to 

 a rigida form, and the specimens also ; yet we have Audersson's 

 drawing of the leaf-margin against it. It looks very different from 

 our usual rigida, and forms connecting the two in Scotland are not 

 common, though they do occur by rills, ttc. (as suggested to me by 

 Mv. Beeby). In Scandinavia these forms are much more common. 

 In Kng. Bot. x. 112, Dr. Boswell remarks under rigida : " In marshes 

 on Loch-na-gar, and also on Little Craigendal, near the station for 

 Astragalus aljiinus, however, I have gathered a form which closely 

 approaches aqufdiiis." In the Boswell herbarium there are several 

 sheets of this plant, some named ''aquatilis /," some " rigida /," and 

 others not named. To me they are clearly a form of rigida and 

 not aquatilis, for though the leaves are not strongly revolute, they 

 may be called subrerolute, and I cannot see how they difi'er fuom 

 limula, I have not seen the Little Craigendal plant, but similar 

 specimens to those from Lochnagar occur on the Clova table-land.; 

 and along with them, but much more rarely, others I cannot 

 separate from C. hgperhorea. I cannot see much difference in these 

 two plants, nor could Dr. Boott ; and if one contrasts the two 

 l)lates, Flora Danica, their likeness is much more apparent than 

 their difference. 



Nyman limits hgperhorea to *' Island, Faroe," yet Drejer himself 



