333 



212. On Carex tenella. Far be it from me to condemn that liberal criticism, the 

 object of which is the attainment or communication of truth. Next to the relation of 

 interesting facts, I know of nothing more suited to the pages of 'The Phytologist' 

 than judicious and candid strictures on standard works relating to Botany ; I trust we 

 shall see many such, and that Mr. Gibson will frequently direct his abilities into that 

 channel. In my former remarks I did not intend more than to show that the author 

 of the ' British Flora' is not chargeable with the neglect or inadvertence imputed to 

 him. The account given by Sir J. E. Smith was referred to, proving that an experi- 

 enced botanist, with superior advantages for forming a correct judgement, and with 

 peculiar inducements to be deliberate, may see or think he sees, in Schkuhr's figure of 

 Carex tenella, something which is not apparent to Mr. Gibson. The question indeed 

 is properly one between him and Sir J. E. Smith only; and if it should prove, as T 

 believe it will, that the question of doubt in ' British Flora' was confined to the Scot- 

 tish specimen called C. tenella by Smith, Mr. G. must be sensible that some of his 

 remarks were needless, as bearing upon a point not under dispute. Admitting Mr. 

 G. to be right in his view of Schkuhr's figure, it follows that Smith must have been 

 wrong, and if so, he may have been also in error as to the Scottish specimen. I could 

 point out parallel cases where Sir J. E. Smith has too hastily assumed the identity of 

 essentially diff'erent plants ; and it is probable that if he possessed only a solitaiy spe- 

 cimen, his examination would, in this case, be rather superficial. To ascertain the 

 existence of only two stamens, dissection would be requisite, and to dissect would be 

 to mutilate what he might wish to preserve uninjured. The fruit also might be so 

 immature as not to exhibit the character of the species. The author of ' British Flora' 

 was not bound to admit that specimen, which he had never seen, on the mere author- 

 ity of one who reported that Schkuhr's figure could not be implicitly relied on ; and it 

 would not be unreasonable in Mr. G. to have some misgivings on the same subject. 

 Let it be remembered also that Wahlenberg and Willdenow refer the whole figure to 

 C. loliacea, a species which, notwithstanding what is said of it by Smith, may possibly 

 have fruit corresponding with the figure. To determine this question recourse must 

 be had to the original description, and perhaps to an authentic specimen of C. lolia- 

 cea. — Id. 



213. Note on a Criticism in Taylor^s Annals* Allow me to say in reference to a 

 note in the July number of the ' Annals and Magazine of Natural History,' (p. 421), 



* The following is the criticism referred to by Mr. Gibson. " Notes on Arenaria 

 rubra, marina and media ; by S. Gibson, Esq. [The two former appear to us to be dis- 

 tinct species, but we cannot agree with Mr. Gibson in separating the latter from ma- 

 rina, as our own observations would lead us to believe that the characters drawn from 

 the seeds and length of the capsule are not constant. We trust that we shall not be 

 considered presumptuous if we hint to this very accurate observer, that a more frequent 

 reference to the writings of continental botanists would be desirable. We say this 

 without the least wish to detract from the value of Mr. Gibson's papers, but m^erely to 

 avoid the introduction of additional synonyms into our already encumbered science, of 

 which an instance occurred in a late number of the ' Phytologist,' where a supposed 

 new species of Monotropa is named and described, which had long since received se- 

 veral denominations in botanical works.]" — From a notice of 'The Phytologist,' in the 

 'Annals and Magazine of Natural History,' ix. 421. 



