NOTES ON CAREX. 



249 



Backmau and Holm's Oesl.-uch.-Lapp. 237 (1878) are 'UtquatiUs x 

 vuhjaiis junccUa." I have not seen arcitata, but the description of 

 its surroundings by Laestadius does not seem to exclude our plant, 

 though of couise the vegetation is really more boreal. Mr. Barclay 

 tells me they have not succeeded in landing C. aquatilis on the 

 White Myre, though it has been searched over since 1878. 



A specimen sent by Mr. Barrington from Lough Ree, Ireland, 

 was named C. turfosa f. elowjata by l5r. Lauge ; placing this by the 

 side of the Perth plant, it is difficult to find any real difference, and 

 I would say they are substantially the same, and, likely enough, 

 C. aquatilisx GooJenowiijuiicclla; aquatilis X ritjida very improbable. 



Hjelt says that- specimens named epifjejos Laest. come under 

 three forms : — 



1. C. aquatilis X ritjida, the original plant. 



2. A small form of aquatilis. 



3. The Arctic C. sta)is Drejer. 



To show the close connection of these forms he says a plant 

 from "Kantalaks," Lapponia pingeusis F. Nylander, is named C. 

 turfosa? ; and that Fries Herb. Norm. f. 12, 89, called by Hartmau 

 aquatilis epiyejos Laest., is C. salina fiavicans x rigida, according to 

 Almquist. 



The forms of aquatilis we seem to possess are : — 



1. C. aquatilis var. cuspidata (Laest.) Fries, Bot. Not. 104 (1843). 

 I follow Andersson in quoting Laestadius for this, but it seems to 

 me that Laestadius's name of C. aquatilis var. subacuta {Nov. Act. 

 Upsal. xi. 287 (1839) ), is the same thing. This has the glumes 

 elongated and cuspidate as in the viaritima. 



2. C. aquatilis rinsccns Auders. Ci/p. Stand. 46 (1849). Just 

 the opposite to the last ; the glumes half the length of the fruit, 

 which IS very symmetrically arranged. 



3. C. aquatilis viinur Boott, Jll. Carex. iv. 163, t. 545. The 

 montane plant with the spikes attenuated at the base, from the 

 confines of Forfar, Aberdeen, and An Beiunau, Perth. There is 

 nothing that exactly matches this in Europe, although very near ; 

 but our plant has a facies that is distinguishable. 



4. C. aquatilis var. elatior ! Bab. Man. Brit. Bot. ed. 1, 341 

 (1843). C. aquatilis var. Watsoni! Syme Emj. Bot. ed. 3, v. 113, 

 t. 1G42 (1870). The lowland plant, usually with the spikes stout, 

 equal, and continuous, leafy bracts, and tall (3-5 feet) stems ; 

 between this and minor come some forms we have. 



6. C. aquatilis var. epiyejos Laest. (if the Perth plant?). Narrow- 

 leaved, strict, spikes thin, glumes dark, male spike (1 or 2) very 

 dark, stem slender. ('. aquatilis var. cpiyrjos Laest. Vet. Ah. Ihmdl. 

 339 (1822). C. epiyrjo.s Hartm. (non Fries). C. horealis Lang in 

 Flora 142 (1843), teste Beurliiig. We are here met by a difficulty 

 in nomenclature that is not easy to unravel. Lang in Linnoia 

 (xxiv. 503 (1851)) notes that his name appeared in April, 1843, 

 while that of Fries appeared in July, 1843 ; but Lang refers both 

 Laestadius s plant, and Fries's to his species. I have not been able 

 to see a specimen of borealis named by Lang, but from his remarks 

 on that plant I have lillle doubt he refers to that of Laestadius ; if 



