NOTES ON" SOME HERTFORDSHIRE CARICRS. 367 



{it that period, is drawn from a plant with unripe fruit, and adds but 

 little to our knowledge of its character, and except for the longer 

 sheath of the lowest bract, and the exserted pedicel which accompanies 

 it, might well have been taken from an ordinary example of immature 

 C.jiava. 



A new species was thus introduced into our flora, closely allied to 

 C.flava; nor was any other relationship indicated by its author. The 

 question was, however, reconsidered, and three years later, and after 

 the receipt of additional specimens from the same correspondent, 

 Goodenough took occasion in his second paper on our native Carices 

 to give expression to a decided alteration in his views. " When," he 

 remarks, " I inserted C. fulva as a distinct species, I did it in con- 

 sequence of a variety of specimens sent me by my friend, Mr. Williams ; 

 all of which being nearly the same as that represented in the figure 

 given in my former paper, and entirely corresponding with my 

 foreign specimens, I concluded that I had nothing further to discover. 

 Mr. Williams has since sent me specimens of more forward growth 

 which prove it to be a variety joi C. flava. In the figure of my former 

 paper it is represented with three female spikes ; it very seldom has 

 more than two. I would wish, therefore, to correct the article of C. 

 fulva, and make it a variety of C. flava: — C. flava, var. /3., spicis 

 foemineis duabus " (Linn. Trans., vol. 3, p. 77. Read Jan, 6, 1795). 

 And he would thus appear to have relied mainly upon the reduced 

 number of spikelets to difl^erentiate his iovm.QV fulva even as a variety 

 from C'. flava. Accordingly, in the following year (1796) we find 

 Withering arranging C. fulva as var. 2 of C. flava, and supplementing 

 his notice with the important statement that " Dr. Goodenough has 

 authorised me to say that having cultivated the C. fulva he is con- 

 vinced of its being only a variety of the C. flava " (Bot. Arr., ed. iii., 

 V. 2, p. 99). Such, then, was the result ot the application of the con- 

 clusive test of cultivation to the British specimens of the supposed 

 new species; while of the American examples: " It is remarkable," 

 to quote the suggestive words of the illustrious monographer of the 

 genus, "that Goodenough originally received C. fulva from America, 

 and that the late Mr. B. D. Greene found it some years back near 

 Boston, and that no one has since met with it there or elsewhere in 

 the States" (Boott, 111., pt. iv., p. 138). Whatever view then w(' 

 take of this identification of the Boston plant, it may well be questioned 

 whether the American fulva was anything more than a transitory 

 phase of some other species. 



There can be little doubt that the claims of C. fulva to specific 

 rank were fully and finally withdrawn by their original author, as 

 having been founded on a misconception resulting from the exami- 

 nation of plants of immature growth. Sir James Smith, however, 

 seems to have been of a different opinion. In his " Flora Britannica " 



I eferred by Reichenbach, I know not on what grounds, to his fulva, which he 

 distinguishes from Hornschuchiana. On the other hand, Degland quotes C. 

 triyona as well as Haller's " C. culmo foliisque firmis erectis, spicis foemineis 

 qnaternis longe petiolatis erectis" (Nomcncl., n. 1383) under his C. fulva, which 

 is not that of Reichenbach, and the description obviously cannot be applied to 

 (jioodenough's plant. 



