715 



fied every method I have had the opportunity of trying. — Leo. H. 

 Grindon ; Manchester, August 7, 1843. 



355. Note on Epimediuni alpinum. On the 19th of June last I vi- 

 sited Bingley, for the purpose of making myself better acquainted 

 with the Carices &c. which grow in that neighbourhood, and more 

 particularly Epimedium alpinum, as in Mr. Watson's New Guide (at 

 p. 275) there is the following reference to that plant: — ^^ Epimedium 

 alpinum. Bingley woods, B. G. (is it still there ?)" In reply to this 

 question I would say that the plant, to my knowlege, has been in the 

 neighbourhood of Bingley for more than twenty years, as I gathered 

 specimens in that locality on the 7th of May, 1821, and again in 1834. 

 In the fifth edition of Withering's ' Systematic Arrangement ' (ii. 258), 

 I find the following reference to Bingley woods: — "Mr. Hailstone, 

 in Whitaker's Craven, observes that it certainly is not now to be found 

 in Bingley woods." There is also something said on this plant in the 

 * Yorkshire Flora,' and in the second part of Watson's Guide, but as I 

 have not these books at hand, and do not now recollect what is said, 

 I will refer the reader to look for himself. How the Epimedium may 

 have got into the neighbourhood of Bingley, I know not ; but certain 

 it is that that plant is and has been in that neighbourhood for a great 

 length of time, and not confined to one particular place, since I have 

 found it on both sides of the river. On the 19th of June last, Mr. 

 Ainley showed me the plant growing on the left hand side of the river 

 going from Bingley towards Leeds. When I gathered the plant in 

 1821 and 1834, I got it on the other side of the river, and much fur- 

 ther from the town. I do not here make any attempt to prove that 

 Epimedium alpinum is a true British plant, but merely to say, in an- 

 swer to Mr. Watson's question, that the plant is still to be found in 

 the neighbourhood of Bingley. — Samuel Gibson ; Hebden Bridge, 

 August 6, 1843. 



356. Note on an apparently undescribed Biitish Carex. Perhaps 

 you will allow me to trespass a little more on your pages, as I have a 

 few remarks to offer on a Carex, which appears not to be described in 

 any of our works on British plants. The plant I wish to notice is one 

 that is mentioned by Mr. Lees, at p. 48 of his ' Botany of the Malvern 

 Hills.' It is now some time since Mr. Lees sent me a speciuien of 

 his Malvern plant, and wished to have my opinion as to its specific 

 identity. The specimen sent at that time was in a very young state, 

 and I imagined it to be the same as my Carex ovalis, var. bracteata ; 

 however, Mr. Lees has sent me specimens of more complete growth, 

 which prove it to be very different from that plant. A few days ago 



