876 



cimens, in the same spike with other fruits bearing three. But in 

 such cases there is difficulty in feeling certain that one of them had 

 not broken close off. 



In Carex the changes are proportionally not numerous, though 

 confusing enough. The rather frequent Highland plant, hitherto con- 

 sidered an alpine form of C. curta, is raised to the rank of species 

 under the name of C. Persoonii {Sieb.). The name of C. Goodenovii 

 (Gay), adopted in the former edition, is dismissed in favour of C. vul- 

 garis {Fries), for the well-known C. caespitosa of Smith, which is 

 now understood not to be the species so called by Linnaeus. In the 

 former edition, this latter name was transferred to C. stricta {Good.) ; 

 and Goodenough's name was suppressed. In the present edition, 

 however, the name of C. stricta {Good.) is again bestowed upon Good- 

 enough's species, and that of C. caespitosa (L.) is assigned to a third 

 species, not satisfactorily ascertained to be a native of Britain. All 

 this is confusing, but the author of the Manual has simply followed 

 others, and no blame rests with him. The various applications of 

 the unfortunate name to three species may be thus indicated : — 



1. Carex caespitosa, English Flora. 



C. caespitosa, British Flora, earlier editions. 

 C. Goodenowii, British Flora, edition 5. 

 C. Goodenovii, Manual, edition 1. 

 C. vulgaris, Manual, edition 2. 



2. Carex caespitosa, British Flora, edition 5. 



C. caespitosa, Manual, edition 1. 

 C. stricta, Manual, edition 2. 



C. stricta, English Flora j also British Flora, earlier 

 editions. 



3. Carex caespitosa, Manual, edition 2. 



Not included in the English Flora or British Flora. 



In Poa, the dubious P. laxa of Scotland is subdivided into P. mi- 

 nor {Gaud.) and P. laxa {Hcenke). The three Parnellian species of 

 the genus are still retained ; namely, montana, Balfourii, and poly- 

 noda. That Dr. Parnell must have taken much pains with his work 

 on British Grasses, and that his figures are generally very good as 

 representations of plants, we are fully prepared to admit ; but we find 

 great difficulty in following his minute divisions into species. If that 

 author believes in the soundness of his own species, as may be safely 



