770 



securities of its comparatively undisturbed possession and character 

 for rarity. Next to these two treasures the most interesting object 

 we saw on Lochnagar was a fine eagle, which sailed out of the cliff 

 within a stone's throw of us. 



In descending the Glass Mhiel to the head of Canlochen Glen we 

 fell in with Cerastium latifolium ; a very distinct plant from C. alpi- 

 num, with which it was growing. Indeed, the chief similarity seems 

 to be in their both forming dense, matted tufts, and usually bearing 

 solitary flowers. The corolla of our C. latifolium is but little longer 

 than the calyx ; the uppermost bracts are entirely destitute of any 

 membranous margin, and the pubescence, instead of being soft, silky 

 and shaggy, is bristly, rather rigid and short. 



Poa montana, Balfourii and nemoralis were gathered in Canlochen 

 Glen (?). Gentiana nivalis, Erigeron alpinus, &c, &c, were abun- 

 dant as usual. A root of the former, placed under a tumbler at Brae- 

 mar, expanded its deep cserulean blossom beautifully in the sunshine. 



Saxifraga nivalis studded the face of one of the great crags in every 

 direction, but the dark, hard rock seemed to be destitute of all other 

 objects of interest. 



A solitary specimen of a Juncus, resembling biglumis, was gathered 

 on the Glass Mhiel ; whether the true biglumis or a very reduced 

 castaneus, we could not decide. Its size was that of a fine biglumis, 

 but the character was that of castaneus with two glumes and a pro- 

 jecting tall bract. Forms of biglumis and of triglumis certainly ap- 

 proximate in a very confusing and rather unpleasant manner. Can 

 these be hybrids between castaneus and triglumis ? An affirmative 

 proof would be rather consolatory. 



In looking over my specimens gathered on the Glass Mhiel in 1848, 

 I was struck with the dissimilarity between a plant which we then 

 took for a large form of Sagina saxatilis and the usual state of it as 

 shown by our specimens gathei-ed this year in Glen Phee, &c. On 

 referring to the ' Guide to Forfarshire,' I found that G. Don disco- 

 vered a plant which he called Spergula maxima, which is supposed 

 to have been a variety of S. saxatilis (Spergula saginoides), and pro- 

 bably the S. macrocarpa of Reichenbach. Not having the works of 

 that author to refer to, I sent it to C. C. Babington, who has always 

 most kindly assisted me in the determination of species, when my 

 own sources of information have failed. He tells me that he thinks 

 it will prove the Sagina nivalis of Fries, a species hitherto unknown to 

 Britain. That it is no variety of S. saxatilis seems certain : it differs 

 in the plant being destitute of the central tuft of leaves, in having 



