the Dillenian Herbarium. 103 



CONFERViE. 



No. 1. It is singular that the very first species is almost the 

 only instance where we met with a complete difference between 

 the figure in Dillenius's work and the plant in his Herbarium. The 

 specimen evidently grew in a loose straggling manner, from which 

 circumstance, and the tenuity of its filaments, it seems to be 

 C. spiralis of Roth. Both the description, however, and figure 

 appear designed for C. rivularis, to which all authors have re- 

 ferred them. The variety " e muscis lecta" is a very different plant, 

 with the habit of C. compacta, Roth; but its threads are distinctly 

 jointed, and somewhat thicker than those of that species. This 

 also is on the same paper marked " C. maderaspatana in AngliA 

 lecta," but differs from the specimen of C. maderaspatana from 

 Plukenet's Herbarium, which is of a whitish colour and unlike 

 any species with which we are acquainted. 



2. C. nitida. Fl. Dan. 



3. The specimen is entirely destroyed by age ; a thing very 

 much to be regretted, as no means are now left us of clearly as- 

 certaining the C. fontinalis of Linnaeus, Hudson, and others, a 

 plant about which a variety of opinions prevails among the bota- 

 nists of this day. 



4. C. confragosa. Fl. Scot.— Dr. Roth's C. velutina, under which 

 he refers to this number, appears from specimens, with which he 

 has been so obliging as to favour me, a distinct species. 



Of 5. and 6. there are no specimens*; the former, however, of 

 these is so accurately described as to leave no doubt of its being 



* I have always noticed, where there are no specimens, that other botanists may 



know where the Herbarium is deficient, and consequently where no information is to 



be derived from a reference to it. In all these cases the figures are cut out and pasted in 



the places. 



C. limosa 



