78 TRANSACTIONS OF THE [Sess. LXXIV. 
In No. 15 I refer var. nigrescens to B alpina, Drejer. 
Carex flava, L., var. recterostrata, Bailey, “ Bot. Gazette ” 
(1888), 84. 
“Plant less yellow, or entirely green; spikes more 
scattered, the lowest two or three inches remote and 
usually conspicuously stalked; beak shorter, straight, or 
nearly so.” 
Vancouver Island, Macoun, C. irridula, Boott, “Ill.” 
Carex, t. 523, may possibly belong here, L.c. 
Carex Goodenovii, Gay, var. strictiformis (7), Bailey 
(sub vulgaris). 
“Tall and lax (14 to 24 feet high), the leaves long and 
narrow; staminate spike, longer pedunculed; pistallite 
spikes looser and often longer than in the species, the 
perigynia never being so densely packed, and usually 
becoming browner. This plant stands midway between 
C. vulgaris and C. stricta.” This American stricta is much 
like the var. virescens of C. aquatilis, Wablb. 
Carex rostrata, Stokes, var. utriculata, Bailey (No. 3). 
C. utriculata, Boott in Hook., “ Fl. Bor. Am.,’ 11. (1840), 
221. 
To this Herr Kiikenthal refers the Irish plant I named 
in error C. rhynchophysa. 
Professor Bailey (No. 7) writes: “A study of much 
material, in field and herbarium, renders the differences 
between the European C. rostrata and our plant apparent. 
From the European species C. utriculata is separated by 
grosser habit, lack of stoloniferous character, broader and 
proportionately shorter leaves, heavier and more scattered 
spikes, of which the lower are less pedunculed, and much 
sharper scales.” 
Carex acuta, L., var. strictifolia, Uechtz.=C. strictifolia, 
Opiz in “Reich. Ic.,” viii. (1846), 15=C. prolixa, Fries, 
“ Mant.,” iii. (1842) 150. Uechtz. in “Sch. Ges. Vat. Cult.” 
(1875), p. 30, seems to be the first to have made the above 
combination; but Hartmann, “ Hand. Sk. FL,” 4th ed. (18483), 
calls it C. acuta, var. prolixa, and this must stand (Bennett, 
15). 
No. 14. Andersson here discusses the various forms of 
these two species as they occur in Swedish Lapland, and 
1 (C. stricta, Lam., “ Dict. de Bot.,” iii. (1789), 387, not of Smith. 
