77 



42. Enquiry relating to the Plates of Leightoii's ' Flora of Shropshire.' I beg to 

 enquire, through the medium of ' The Phytologist,' which of the nineteen plates in 

 Leighton's Flora has either figures or sections'of the fruit or appendages of any of the 

 six following species of Carex described in the 4th vol, of Smith's ' English Flora,' 

 &c. &c.; viz., C. angustifolia, Mielichoferi, speirostachya, stictocarpa, tenella and 

 ustulata? — Saml. Gibson ; Hehden Bridge, September 7, 1841. 



[Our correspondent will find figures and a section of the fruit of Carex ustulata, 

 on the right hand side of plate 16, p. 461, of the Shropshire Flora; the other five Ca- 

 rices enquired after, and which are described as species in the ' English Flora,' are not 

 now considered to be entitled to that rank. We are decided enemies to the multipli- 

 cation of species on insufficient grounds ; and have long been of opinion that at least 

 the Carex stictocarpa and angustifolia of ' English Flora,' possessed but weak claims 

 to the rank assigned to them by the author. Sir W.J. Hooker was unacquainted with 

 both when the earlier editions of his ' British Flora' appeared ; and in the 4th edition 

 of that work stictocarpa appears as a synonyme of Hudson's C. recurva, and angusti- 

 folia bears the same relation to C. csespitosa, Linn. Of the plant described in ' Eng- 

 lish Flora' as the Carex tenella of Schkuhr, Sir W. Hooker asks in the earlier editions 

 of his Flora, " May it not be a starved state of the following .'' " (C. remota) ; he sub- 

 sequently appears to have had reason for believing this conjecture to be well founded, 

 for in the 4th edition of that work, we find C. tenella sunk into a synonyme of C. re- 

 mota, Linn. A like fate has befallen the two remaining Carices, respecting whose 

 whereabouts our correspondent enquires. The facts of the histories of the plants de- 

 scribed in ' English Flora' as the Carex Mielichoferi of Willdenow and C. speirosta- 

 chya, Swartz, seem to have been somehow or other confounded in such a manner that 

 it would now perhaps be difficult to unravel the mystery ; suffice it to say that in the 

 last edition of the ' British Flora,' the latter has been referred to C. fulva, Good., as a 

 variety, and the name of the former appears as a synonyme of C. phaeostachya, Sm. 

 And even of C. phaeostachya itself Sir W. Hooker remarks, " In deference to the opin- 

 ion of Mr. Borrer, I rank this as a species ; but it is probably only a variety of C. pa- 

 nicea, with less glaucous (greener) herbage and a bifid beak to the fruit. The above 

 synonymes are referred hither at the suggestion of Dr. Boott." This gentleman has 

 for several years past made the Carices his particular study ; and Sir W. J. Hooker 

 expresses his acknowledgments to him " for many valuable remarks and improvements 

 both in the arrangement and definition " of the Carices, for the fourth edition of the 

 ' British Flora.' 



While on a subject connected with Mr. Leighton's ' Flora of Shropshire,' we 

 embrace the opportunity of laying before our readers the following complete list of 

 species and varieties new to the British Flora, described in that work. The list may 

 be regarded as a supplement to the 'Catalogue of British Plants' printed for the Bo- 

 tanical Society of Edinburgh. — Ed."] 



Viola imberbis, Leight. Cerasus austera, Leight. 

 Chenopodium intermedium, Meri.^Koch. Pyrus Mains, Linn. 

 Cuscuta Epilinum, Weihe P a. sylvestris, Leight. 



Dianthus plumarius, Linn. ^. sativa, Leight. 



Oxalis Acetosella, Linn. fi. purpurea. Rubus affinis, W. ^- N. 

 Spergula vulgaris, Bonningh. ^. W. Sf N. 



Reseda alba, Linn. y. W. Sr -ZV. 



