CAREX PSEUDO-l'ARADOXA 



^ery carefully described his new Carex, and was particular to call 

 attention to its divergences from both the above-mentioned species, 

 but, curiously enough, omitted all reference to C. imniculata in 

 this initial account. 



The announcement of the new plant brought forth spirited 

 criticisms in the same journal from Dr. J. B. Wood, G. Luxford, 

 J. Sidebotham, and others ; and much was written, in the some- 

 what forceful and often personal manner of the day, to show that 

 Gibson's plant was nothing but a form of C. teretiuscula. This 

 opinion was vigorously opposed by Gibson in a careful note [op. 

 cit. 1038, 1844), in which he contrasted his plant with all the allied 

 species, including G. iKiniculata. 



Here the matter seems to have been left, Babington (Man. ed. 

 ■2, 357, 1847, and all subsequent editions). Hooker (Stud. Fl. 

 408, 1870, and editions following), Syme (Eng. Bot. ed. 3, 88, 

 1870), and others placing Gibson's plant as synonymous with 

 C. teretiuscula Good. var. Ehrhartiana Hoppe. Richter (PI. 

 Europ. i, 149, 1890), however, ^IsiCes Pseudo-jMradoxa as a variety 

 under true C. paradoxa Willd., a position it cannot possibly 

 occupy. 



Botanizing in a fascinating swamp near Restennet Farm, 

 Forfar, with Mr. E. G. Baker, in July, 1912, we saw in plenty a 

 Carex that, at first sight, led us to believe we had indeed dis- 

 covered C. paradoxa in Scotland. A closer examination decided 

 that such a decision could not stand, and C. Pseudo-paradoxa of 

 Gibson seemed the only possible solution. 



The habit and size of the whole plant were completely those of 

 C ptaradoxa, but it had not the peculiar frayed sheaths at the base 

 of the stem, which Mr. Arthur Bennett tells me is a character he 

 has never known to fail, although it is not shown in the Eng. Bot. 

 drawing, nor was the perigynium suddenly contracted into the 

 beak as in paradoxa ; moreover, the beak was strongly winged. 

 Neither could the plant be put under C. teretiuscula, which grew 

 with it in the same marsh and w^as abundantly distinct by its more 

 slender habit, spike-like panicle, less ribbed perigynium, etc. 



All the minuter details of the inflorescence pointed to C.ptanicu- 

 lata, and I recalled Gibson's preliminary mention of his plant as 

 a variety of C. teretiuscula {op. cit. 366, 1842), where he says that 

 its "fruit"" [agrees] with Leighton's figure of the fruit of 

 C. paniculata." 



It then became necessary to examine the ripe nuts of the 

 Restennet plant and those of its near allies, with the following 

 results : — 



C. teretiuscula. Nut brownish, broadest above the middle, 

 pyriform ; base of style scarcely thickened. The figure of the nut 

 in Leighton's Flora of Shropshire, p. 454 (1841) is much more 

 accurate, I should say, than that in Eng. Bot. ed. 3, t. 1619, but 

 both are inferior to the beautiful drawing by Sir W. O. Priestley 

 ,(1829-1900) in the British herbarium of Herb. Mus. Brit. 



* Gibson used the word " fruit " to designate the nut, not the perigynium. 



