370 NOTES ON SOME HEETFOEDSnTUE CARICES. 



and Koch, and concludes that many of tlie characters are not to be 

 depended upon.* I cannot help thinking that the original difficulty 

 as to the C. fulva of Goodonough and Smith is at the bottom of this 

 confusion ; and Smith's own specimens certainly contributed not a 

 little tu confirm any previous l)ias in this direction. 



In these doubtful circumstances it seems better to drop altogether 

 a name, which was abandoned as a mistake by its original author, and 

 has now lost all fixedness of application. 



C. xanthocarpa, Degl. in Lois, gall., t. 2, p. 299.t F. Schultz in 

 Flora, 1854, p. 471. C. fulva, Hoppe in Flora, 1824, p. 593 ; Koch, 

 Syn., 884 ; Boreau, Fl. du Cent., 67G. 



Our Hertfordshire examples exactly agree with those in Rchultz's 

 "Herbarium Normale " (cent. 4, JN^o. 378). There are specimens in 

 hb. Boott which are " rtrt'/«iVY<J/y expressive of the /«/t'rt character" 

 (Boott MS.). Those from another locality in hb. Borrer have been 

 marked by him as " very near to C. fiavaP The lower pedicel is 

 often much shorter than in Degland's description. I have found it 

 growing in much wetter places than the next. It is especially luxu- 

 riant near Sawbridgeworth, where it is accompanied by C. lepidocarpa. 



C. Hornschuchiana, Hoppe in Flora, 1824, p. 599 ; Koch, Syn., 

 884, Boreau, Fl. du Cent., 677 ; C. fulva, F. Schultz in Flora, 1854, 

 p. 471 ; and Hb. Normale, cent. 4, No. 379 ! C. speirostachija, Sm. 

 Eng. Fl. iv., 98. 



In drier situations than the preceding, and much more generally 

 diffused throughout the county, as seems to be the case also in Cam- 

 bridgeshire. 



C. xanthocarpa \ differs from C. Hornschuchiana in its denser 



* " Your C. fulva is admirably expressive of its [fulva) character, aud at the 

 first glance impressed mo with a speciiic difference. But if you look at Koch's 

 description you will see how verbally alike it and his C. I/ostcana are, and how 

 probable it is that intermediate forms would occur which would be dilKcult to 

 name " (LJoott in litt. to Coleman, 18-16). If the verbal similarity of Koch's 

 descriptions is to be taken as evidence of the identity of the plants described, 

 this is not the only species to be erased from our Flora. The specimen itself 

 will be noticed under C. xanthocarjM. 



t "C radice subrepente tenaci, culmo pedali obtuse triquetro superne 

 aspero canaliculate, foliis planis rigidulis, vagina truncata, spica mascula tereti 

 utrinque acuta, foemineis subternis ovatis, infima longius pedunculata vix dimidie 

 vaginata basi interdum ramosa, bracteis foliaceis culmo longioribus ore oblique 

 ligulatis, utriculis striatis flavescentibus rostro tenui bidcntatis squamam tri- 

 nervem cordato-lanceolatam superantibus, fructu turbinato-triquetro fusco. 



" Kadixsubrepcnslibrislongis barbata. Culmuspedalisstriatusobtusetriqneter 

 superne scaber hinc canuliculatus. Folia plana rigidula acuta duas circitcr hneas 

 lata, vaginis truncatis. iSpica mascula solitaria teres utrinque acuminata 

 cinerco-Havescens, squamis obovatis obtusis margino superiore membranaceis. 

 iSpicaj ftemineJB plerumquo bina) remota) ovat;c, infima longius pedunculata 

 Laud infrequenter ramosa, suprema subsessili. Bracteas foliace;e culmum supe- 

 rantes. Vagina hiatu oblique ligulala. IJlriculi oblougi stiiati, in rostrum exile 

 hispidulum atteuuati, obiter emargiiiati. Squamie trinervos cordate lanceolatiu 

 utriculo \ix breviores. Fructus turbiuato-triquetcr fuscus." Flo. gall.,\. 2., 

 p. 299 (ed. 2, 1828). The Cyperaceio in Loiscleur's Flora were described by 

 J. V. Ijegland, Botanical Professor at Kennes. 



J This description was drawn up before i had made myself acquainted with 

 Hoppe's remarks in the " Flora " for 1824, with which it will be found to coin- 

 cide iu several particulars. 



