80 TRANSACTIONS OF THE [ Sess. DXxIV. 
C. aquatilis, Wahlb. (Bennett, 15)—Herr Kiikenthal gives 
a new form, angustata, Kuk., from Forfar (Somerville) and 
Easterness (Marshall); var. spagnophila, “Fr. Sum. Veg. 
Scand.,” 72, 1846. 
From Clova (Boott): S$. Aberdeen (Druce).—This is very 
near var. epigejos, Laest., “ Vet. Ak. Handl.” (1822), 339, but. 
Andersson says of the latter: “squamis fusco-atris fere 
brevioribus, fusco iridis”; of the former, “squamis pure 
viridis.” 
The plant from Methven Bog, named epigejos by Dr. 
Almquist seems not to belong to that variety; see my 
remarks in No. 15. There is some discrepancy between 
the Herb. Normale specimens and the description in 
Andersson and his drawing. 
C. alpina, Sw. (1798) is used instead of C. Halleri, 
1766-72; but there is a C. alpina, Schrank, “Baier. FI.,” 
299 (1789) =C. sempervirens, Will., so that perhaps it would 
be well to go back to C. Vahlii (1801). 
Lang in Linn., xxiv. (1851), p. 563, notes that his name 
C. borealis, Lang, “ Flora,’ March 1843, p. 142, antedates 
Fries’ C. epigejos, “ Bot. Not.,’ July 1843, but of course this 
only applies if the plant is held to be a species. He says 
it is intermediate between C. aquatilis and C. rigida, and 
that specimens sent to him have borne both names. The 
remark is made “ Ann.,” Lc., p. 50, as to Scotland, “ does it 
really occur there.” As Herr Kiikenthal has himself 
named specimens from “Corrie Kander” (see No. 16) as 
“C. aquatilis, var. epigejos, Anderss.” (why the var. is 
placed to Andersson I do not know, as Lestadius named 
it aquatilis 8 epigejos in 1822), it seems it does occur 
there. 
The salina form I name (15) as having seen only three 
specimens of, 7.e. one at Kew, one in the Boswell herbarium, 
and one sent me by Dr. Buchanan White as “the alpine 
form from Clova of aquatilis,” is a difficult one to give a 
name to; it certainly comes very near the C. epigejos, Fries. 
(non Leest.), “ Bot. Not.,” 105 (1843), see No. 15=C. dis- 
color, “ Nyl. Spic. Fl. Fenn.,” 111.12 (1846). 
C. fusca, Allioni, “Fl. Ped.” (1785), 11, 269.—<A good 
specimen in Allioni’s herbarium.” Bailey, No. 7. 
C. polygama, Schk., “ Riedg.,” 84, t. 76 (1801). 
