310 Mr. J. E. BiCHENo's Observations 



plant, as marks to distinguish this from the preceding species. 

 It is very plentiful in those places on the coast subject to be 

 overflowed by the sea, and varies very much in size. Virgil's 

 epithet, " liraosus juncus," applies to most of this family, but to 

 none more forcibly than this. The Flor. Dan. figure 431, and 

 Morison's sect. viii. t. 9- /• H- resemble this more than the last. 

 The names of Lob. 18., Ger.lS. 1., Ger. em. 2 1.4., and Park. 1270.6., 

 correspond much better with J.ccetiosus than with J. squarrosus ; 

 and indeed Ray, in the first edition of his Sj/nopsis, so applied 

 them ; but was afterwards induced to change his opinion by the 

 observations of Dr. Plukenet (vid. Philosophical Letters of Ray, 

 p. 232.), who says, " I must needs acknowledge that I am not a 

 little entangled in my thoughts about the J uncus parvus cum per i- 

 carpiis rotundis, J. B., which though you are pleased to make the 

 same with the Gram. June, marit. Lob., I cannot easily obtain 

 with myself a compliance herein, but do rather accept it as the 

 Juncus acutus Cambro-britannic. Park., and which I take to be a 

 true and genuine Rush, as you most truly have observed. But 

 unto this you are pleased to apply the June. Cajnbro-brit., Park. 

 {h. e.), Gr. June, maritim.. Lob., whose Icon of it (and indeed so 

 do those of all other authors) agrees exactly with our Moss-Kush, 

 the capsules whereof are somewhat elongated and pinched in to- 

 Avards the top, resembling more a cone than a globe, the capsules 

 of the former being more accurately round, according as its name 

 imports." Ray, however, in his second edition of the St/nopsis, 

 states, that though he agrees with Dr. P. in rejecting the syno- 

 nyms of Bauhin, which he had before quoted, he could not as- 

 sent to this being the Juncus acutus alpinus Cambro-britanicus, 

 Park. It induced him, nevertheless, to omit this synonym under 

 J. squarrosus, to which, in the first edition, he had appropriated 

 it — a change which I cannot but think was erroneous. If the di- 

 stinction of the two plants J. compressus and canosus be admitted, 



the 



