1885] BOTANICAL CORRESPONDENCE. 405 



To the same. 



Cambridge, July 24, 1885. 



.... I hope that R. Dick will have the credit due to him. 

 He had no means of detecting that the plant is C. strigosa, and not 

 what he supposed it to be, the C. lapponica of Hooker. I see 

 J. Hooker still gives Caithness as one station of Deyeuxia neglecta 

 (on the authority of specimens found by Dick). — Yours, Charles 

 C. Babington. 



To Alfred Fryer, Esq. 



Hkubarium, Cambridge, Auff. 10, 1885. 



My dear Sir, — I think it was Mr. Bennett who lately sent me 

 I'oots of what seems to be the true Potamogeton flahellatus from 

 Surrey, and I have no doubt that your plant and that from Surrey 

 are the same. The fruit is very seldom to be found on account of 

 the canals and drains being carefully cleared of weeds in the middle 

 of the summer, but I think that the broad lower leaves (if present) 

 are always sufficient to distinguish it. I do not know upon what 

 characters you and he are inclined to distinguish your plant from 

 mine. I am very sorry that I cannot send you a specimen of 

 flahellatus. I have often had difficulty in finding the broader lower 

 leaves, owing to the specimens which usually only consist of the 

 flowering tops. I am usually here between say 10.30 and 12.30, 

 and if you will give me notice when you are likely to come, I will 

 arrange so as to be certainly there at the former hour. Ileichenbach 

 says of the leaves of Zizii : " When floating leaves occur they are 

 pellucid." — Yours very truly, Charles C. Babington. 



I expect to be at Cambridge this week and next, but probably 

 not afterwards until October. 



To the same. 



Cambridge, Dec. 2, 1885. 



Dear Sir, — I do consider your plant to be Potamogeton flahellatus. 

 A section of the fruit is different from that of P. pectinatus. I 

 believe that if we could find the plant in such a place as these are 

 from, we should usually find the fruit. It is usually destroyed by 

 the clearers of the weeds from the waters before they are perfected. 

 I should have expected the rapid stream in Surrey to draw the 

 plant out from the fan-shaped form, and so render its look very 

 different. My impression is that the broad leaves do, as a rule, 

 decay in the summer when the plant is flowering. No doubt they 

 may occasionally be found even then by careful search. I am much 

 obliged by your remark about the fruit of P. lucens. — Yours truly, 

 Charles C. Babington. 



