300 



exists : — It is zigzag, with only two rough edges, taking a fresh direction at each 

 joint, as if pushed aside by the spikelet and itsbractea; in C. axillaris the rachis 

 is perfectly straight, and has three rough edges. The glumes in C. axillaris are 

 roundish ovate (not acuminate), tipped with a very short rough point or continuation 

 of the midrib ; they are larger and whiter than those of C. remota, which are ovate- 

 acuminate and narrower than the fruit. The lowest spikelet is generally compound in 

 C. axillaris ; but I have never seen it so in C. remota. With the ripe fruit of C. ax- 

 illaris I am not yet acquainted ; but from what I can judge of it in an immature stage 

 it must be narrower than the glumes, and the ribs on the outer side must be essential- 

 ly different from those of C. remota. I fear your correspondent (Phytol. 263) has ano- 

 ther object in view, besides asking for information. He seems to have a particular 

 fancy for severe criticism, and I am really surprized that he should advance the strange 

 opinion that Dr. Goodenough was " not a very close observer of the Carices.'' The 

 passage alluded to only shows that he had not at that time fully investigated the sub- 

 ject. It is surely sufficient for us to rectify the casual mistakes of our predecessors, 

 without robbing them of their due meed of praise. Again, Mr. G. should be careful 

 to quote accurately ; and it is hardly fair to quote at all the first edition of Hooker's 

 ' British Flora,' when in the second and subsequent editions the mistake has been cor- 

 rected. In the second edition Carex axillaris is thus described : — "lower bractea 

 long, the rest scarcely so long as the spike." The criticism unfairly represents that 

 author as standing alone in the statement that C. axillaris is a taller plant than C. 

 remota. Smith, in different language, says the same, namely, that C. axillaris is "lar- 

 ger " than remota. I quite agree that comment on this point is needless ; and, as a 

 comment, the superadded remark about the size of C. remota is inconclusive and mis- 

 placed. If Sir J. E. Smith were living, he would much disapprove of the use made 

 of the other passage misquoted by Mr. G. — Smith, no doubt, had in mind what Good- 

 enough had said of the " entire capsule '' of C. remota, and was desirous of correcting 

 the mistake, in language and in a spirit well worthy of imitation by all critics. He 

 therefore mildly says of C. axillaris : — " beak more deeply cloven perhaps than that of 

 C. remota, though this difference is not very striking." Mr. G. omits the important 

 word " perhaps,'' and thus reduces the passage to sheer nonsense. This is not the way 

 to deal with an author, nor the way to derive (much less to communicate) instruction. 

 Mr. G.'s real difficulty in distinguishing C. axillaris from C. remota arises from his 

 never having seen it. As for the descriptions in the two works quoted, they are not 

 so defective that specimens actually in my possession might not, if taken singly, jus- 

 tify either of them. I cannot see the utility of alluding to the " good authority '' of 

 the source whence Mr, G. has received C. paniculata under the name of C. axillaris. 

 If any competent botanist has thus sent it, he must have done so through mere inad- 

 vertence ; and I do not think the kind intention of the donor is well requited by the 

 public and somewhat sarcastic announcement of his error. — W. Wilson; Warrington, 

 July 15, 1842, 



198. Description of Carex axillaris, (Phytol. 263). Koot creeping, not caispitose 

 (which in C. remota it certainly is), growing in a more scattered and isolated manner 

 than C. remota, quite as much so as C. teretiuscula compared with C. paniculata. — 

 Stem from eighteen inches to two feet or more in height, rigid, comparatively robust 

 and acutely triangular (its angles rough), strongly striated, nearly erect and straight. 

 Leaves arising from the lower part of the stem, which they enclose in their sheathing 

 bases, linear, plane, though channelled on their upper surface, striated, of a bright 

 light green colour, more than twice the breadth of those of C. remota, slightly keeled 



