168 



sition can occur, where the differences were so wide that a first-rate 

 botanical authority deemed the plants to be not only specifically, but 

 even generically, distinct. In fact, nothing less than the actually ob- 

 served transition would have caused botanists to unite the three into 

 one species. 



Among the cellular plants there are instances alleged, which, if 

 correct, would establish the possibility of transition fi-om one order to 

 another. Perhaps, not much stress should be laid on these instances 

 at present. I do not know that stronger examples than the preceding 

 can be adduced from the vascular plants. Their tendency is in favour 

 of the theory of transition ; although, from admitting of a different 

 explanation in each example, they do not yield unquestionable evi- 

 dence in support of that theory. 



I will not write more on the subject just now; though it may per- 

 haps be desirable to add two or three pages more, on a future occa- 

 sion, for a short summary of the leading arguments, on both sides of 

 the question. I have curtailed argument as much as possible, under 

 the idea that the reasoning faculties are so poorly developed in bota- 

 nists (as a class — but with exceptions) that very few of them will feel 

 any interest, or see any importance, in such an inquiry. The idea of 

 its bearing in any way on the moral condition of the human race, will 

 doubtless appear ridiculous before the eyes of nineteen in twenty bota- 

 nists. But slender as may be his knowledge of plants, the author 

 of the ' Vestiges ' can see much farther than this into Nature and 

 Nature's laws. Hewett C. Watson. 



Thames Ditton, May, 1345. 



Note on Luzula congesta, (Smith). By Thomas Bentall, Esq. 



Mr. Babington, contrary to the opinion entertained by some other 

 botanists, still considers this to be a distinct species ; and describes 

 it in his Manual under the name of Luzula multiflora, {Lej.) The 

 characters by which Mr. B. distinguishes it from L. campestris, are 

 the greater comparative length of the filaments, and the oblong (not 

 reniform) seeds. The following remark is appended to the descrip- 

 tion : — "I introduce this as a species, in order to draw attention to 

 the character which appears to distinguish it from li. campestris, that 

 its constancy may be ascertained." It appears to me that there has 

 been some misunderstanding connected with these plants. In the 

 ' British Flora ' it is stated that both grow together, which I believe is 

 rarely the case, as L. campestris abounds most in open meadows and 



