1878] BOTAjSTICAL CORRESPONDENCE. 385 



Calamagrostis JEEookeri, Who has given this name, and why ? 



Triticum acutum from Leith. Certainly not. Why not T. repens % 



Chara fragifera. I have now an admirable series of this beautiful plant. 



C.flexilis. This I had from Mr. Groves, from the same place. 



C. syncarpa* I am not quite prepared to say that this is the typical 

 plant. May be C. opaca. We must attend to the fresh state to see if the 

 characters are correct, viz. : (1) syncarpa, nucules and globules coated with 

 mucilage, spires of succules broad, flattened, faintly separated ; (2) capitata, 

 similar, but succules with rather acute prominent spires ; (3) opaca, nucules 

 and globules naked, spires prominent. 



C. crlnita from Swan Pool, differs considerably from my specimens from 

 Burdoch Pool. I think it may be only a form of C.foetida. 



C.foetida from the Lizard is curious, and worth moi-e attention. It may 

 be different, but I cannot now settle that point. It is apparently the plant 

 from near Kynance Cove, which I named C.f. var. densa of Cosson last year. 

 It is more like Cosson's figure (" Atl. Fl. de Paris," p. 37, f. 8) than the 

 Kynance Cove plant. 



C. Jiispida. "Shallow pool on Downs, Lizard," is C. polyacantha I 

 believe. I so named what is apparently the same plant for Mr. Ealfs, from 

 " rivulet on Lizard Downs," last year. 



C. aspera. I so named this plant for Mr. Groves last year. It is I 

 believe the C. aspera v. capillata of A. Braun. 



C.fragilis. " Stagnant pool near Land's End," from Mr. Waterfall, is I 

 quite think C. fragifera. [As also is probably a plant which Mr. Townsend 

 got at Tresco, in Scilly, in 1862]. 



RUBI. 



R. Bloxamii. Of course this plant from Marsh Mill is not typical. A 

 specimen of the same from Crabtree, collected in July, 1865, is marked in my 

 herbarium as authentic R. rhenanus (Miill.), on the authority of Genevier. 

 I cannot find any description of R. rhenanus, and have no foreign specimen 

 of it. It difiers in several respects from true R. Bloxamii, of which I have 

 a good series before me from Lees and Bloxam, by its much more hairy stem, 

 indeed, hairiness throughout, but especially by its beautiful pyramidal, open, 

 nearly naked panicle, with long corymbose few-flowered branches, which are 

 quite simple in their lower part. It should not go out as R. Bloxamii with- 

 out note or comment, as it would convey a wrong idea of that plant. 



R. tuberculatus. Not my plant : nor much like it. It is very like 

 R. Balfourianus; especially resembling a plant so named by me in the 

 herbaria Borrer, from Eridge Wood, near Tunbridge Wells ; indeed, almost 

 the only difference is found in the more furrowed stem of the Kew plant now 

 issued. The lower part of the stem of typical R. Balfourianus is not 

 furrowed, although its upper part often is so. I have never seen it with so 

 furrowed a stem as in this from Kew. 



R. fusco-ater. This plant from Bromsgrove Lickey is R. Koehleri 7. 

 pallidus. 



R. scaber. I think that this may be correct. Its very slightly armed 

 stem is remarkable, and in that respect I have nothing like it. 



R. hirtifolius. I have a specimen of R. hirtifolius (Wirtg. "Herb. 

 Eub.," Ed. 1, No. 173), which is very much like this. But Eocke thinks 

 that published specimen doubtful. He thinks that it may possibly be a form 

 of the R. pyramidalis (Kaltenb.), but I can hardly agree with him, with his 

 own specimen of the latter (" Eub. Selec," 65j before me. That has, as he 



* See " Manual " Nitella. 



25 



