808 



away from water, more frequently and more flourishingly than I had 

 previously supposed to be the case. — Hewett C. Watson ; Thames 

 Ditton, November 5, 1843. 



404. Reply to Mr. Gibson on Carex distans. Mr. Gibson's enquiry 

 (Phytol. 777), specially addressed to me, proves (what I was previ- 

 ously unwilling to believe) that he is not aware that the specific cha- 

 racters of Carex distans, and of the two allied species, as given in the 

 4th and 5th editions of the ' British Flora,' have been drawn up by 

 Dr. Boott, and not by Sir W. J. Hooker. To Dr. Boott, as to the 

 "fountain-head" for information on this particular subject, Mr. Gib- 

 son should apply ; no other person can pretend to give an infallible 

 decision on this point. There is no method yet discovered of know- 

 ing the ideas of others, but through the medium of language ; and Mr. 

 Gibson may have learned by experience how easily an inadvertent 

 expression may be turned against the writer to his discredit, either 

 with or without a note of interrogation, by one addicted to such pur- 

 suits of literature. Mr. G. may see no occasion for the characters of 

 C. binervis and C. distans being remodelled, because I have always 

 found myself " at fault in making out the difference between them ; " 

 — (if that is not his reason for mentioning this interesting discovery, 

 why does he make it a matter of such importance here ?) Admitting, 

 for the sake of argument, that my doubts were about something more 

 than the value of these differences, as a foundation for specific cha- 

 racters, does it follow that I must still labour in the dark, and have 

 no help from such able and enlightened men as Dr. Boott ? I agree 

 with Mr. G. that a perfect specific character ought not to be remo- 

 delled, and that every change must be for the worse; but he evidently 

 confounds the idea of a description with that of a specific character. 

 A description may be perfect, while the specific character extracted 

 from it may be ill-constructed. The legitimate object of a specific 

 character is, as I take it, to express, as clearly and as briefly as pos- 

 sible, wherein one plant &c. differs from all other known plants of the 

 same family. For it is impossible to construct the specific character 

 of each, so that it shall answer this end with regard to unknown spe- 

 cies ; and continual changes and remodellings are, in the very nature 

 of things, indispensable, until a Flora is complete. The sanction for 

 altering the specific characters of Carex binervis and C. distans, con- 

 sists in the recent admission of a third species — C. punctata — previ- 

 ously unknown as British, with which each of the two had to be con- 

 trasted. It is evident that Sir W. J. Hooker did not think so highly 

 of his own specific characters, or he would not have changed them 



