NOTES ON SOME HEKTFOEBSniEE CAEICES. 369 



known Smith's species is undoubtedly C. distans. Winch's specimens 

 in the possession of the Linnean Society, as well as some others 

 derived from the same source in Sowerby's herbarium, are mostly C. 

 Hornschuchiana,'^' while of the Shropshire examples in the latter col- 

 lection, from Sir James Smith himself, and stated by him on the ticket 

 to differ '^ horn jiava abundantly, particularly in the straight beak of 

 the seed, longer female spike, and rougher stem," one is clearly 

 genuine and well- developed lepidocarpa, with a divaricate bract, and 

 deliexed beak to the perigynium. 



The same uncertainty will be found to prevail at tlie present day. 

 On the Continent the name fulva has been used indifferently as a 

 synonym for C. Hornschuchiana, which has certainly nothing in common 

 with the original description of Goodenougli, as well as for the flava- 

 like plant which has been contrasted with it. The two standing 

 generally as distinct species. Dr. Hooker places his C. fulva as a 

 subspecies of distans, taking apparently the Smithian view ; while 

 Babington seems rather to have had an eye to the Hava alliance. 

 Both authors have reduced C. Eormchuchiana to varietal rank. Dr. 

 Boswell has described C. Hornschuchiana, Tausch., under the name of 

 C.fulva,\ Goodenough, and quotes Koch (Syn., 889) as an authority, 

 although referring to Reichenbach's figure of ''fulva" (Icon, viii., n. 

 620) which was drawn from a specimen from Hoppe himself, and even 

 to the English Botany plate, which reappears with altered fruit in his 

 own pages. For his var. i3., which he distinguishes mainly by the 

 longer pedicels, he gives a reference to Reichenbach, n. 621 (C 

 Hornschuchiana from Hoppe), but " had Smith not described it as a 

 species" would "certainly not have noticed it even as a variety" 

 (Syme, E. B., x., p. 153). His third form will be mentioned 

 hereafter. It is more difficult to come to any exact conclusion as to 

 the opinion of Dr. Boott, whose description has apparently been 

 drawn up with the object of reconciling the conflicting aspects of the 

 subject, and whose beautiful illustrations were, I think, evidently 

 selected with a view to the same end.;]: He describes a typical plant 

 for which he quotes Goodenough and Smith; a sterile variety dis- 

 tinguished only by its abortive perigynium ;§ and a third form, the 

 C. Hornschuchiana of Hoppe. || He quotes the analyses of Smith, Hoppe, 



* The same may be said of Ed. Forster's, in hb. B. Mus. 



t " C. fulva of Briiish authors is liable to be confounded, not only with C. 

 distans, but also with small specimens of C. bi/icrvis" — Syme, E. B., vol. x., 

 p. 154. 



X The figures of C. Hornschuchiana (111. pt. 4, tab. 443) are not very charac- 

 teristic of the general habit of that plant ; one specimen has crowded spikelets 

 !is in some form of C-flava. 



\ " i'he distinctiuu between them is the yellow ventriose perigynium with 

 its abortive acheniura in the var. 3. as contradistinguished from the ultimately 

 brown perigynium with its perfect achenium, in what 1 have considered the 

 type " (lb., p. 137). 



II A specimen in hb. Borrer, labelled, by Coleman, " C. sp<iirosUichya^<le'Qoo\,\,, 

 Woods, &c.," is biiio-viv. It is mentioned in Coleman's correspondence as ''a 

 Carux which Dr. Boott pronounces to be C, spcirostachya of Sm. , a species he is 

 somewhat inclined to join with C. falva ; to mn it seems f<tr nearer to U. binervis " 

 (Coleman M8S. Corr., 1846). Another sptciinun in hb. Boott, labelled by Cole- 

 man " C. sptiroUachya," seems to be distans. 



2 B 



