810 



rescence, led me, and the friend who was with me, to suspect that it 

 might possibly be something new to us, and if so, probably Carex pa- 

 radoxa, Schkuhr. I therefore instituted a very careful examination 

 into all its characters, being solely desirous to learn the truth respect- 

 ing it, whatever that might be ; and after spending a considerable 

 amount of time and patience in the enquiry, and carefully considering 

 all the facts, particularly in reference to its fruit, which hardly, if at 

 all, differs from that of Carex teretiuscula in its ordinary state, I was 

 obliged, though very unwillingly, to conclude that it was nothing but 

 a form of that plant, putting on a different aspect and habit from 

 the adventitious circumstances under whose influence it happened to 

 grow. Schkuhr's admirable figure of C. paradoxa, combined with his 

 description, conclusively determined that it was not that plant ; feel- 

 ing however very diffident of my own ability to form a correct and 

 positive opinion, and wishing to avoid even the appearance of error 

 or hastiness of conclusion, I procured a considerable supply of recent 

 specimens, and took them with me to my valued friend Mr. Wilson. 

 We again jointly renewed the examination, which was conducted with 

 all the care and ability we could bestow, both of us being anxious to 

 add another species to our Flora, if we could do so consistently ; but 

 after all our pains, the facts were too clear, and the evidence too con- 

 clusive, to allow us to consider it as anything else than a modified form 

 of C. teretiuscula. With this decision I feel quite satisfied, and I 

 have no doubt Mr. Wilson will bear me out in the statements I have 

 made. I may here also mention that the plant was submitted to Dr. 

 Boott, the prince of our caricologists, and the fountain-head from 

 whence alone indisputable opinions on this genus are to be expected, 

 and I am proud to add the weight of his great authority in confirma- 

 tion of our opinion. How Mr. Gibson could possibly assert, with 

 anything like an appearance of truth, that the plant was " a form of 

 C. teretiuscula with ihe fruit of C. paniculata^'' I am utterly at a loss 

 to conceive ; the thing itself is an absurdity. If the plant Juis the 

 fruit of Carex paniculata, I opine that all will agree, save Mr. Gibson, 

 that it must be that plant, or some state of it, and cannot by possibi- 

 lity be either C. teretiuscula, or what Mr. G. pleases to name " C. 

 pseudo-paradoxa." An apple-tree does not generally produce pears, 

 nor, for the same reason, does one species of Carex often assume the 

 fruit characteristic of an entirely different one : the result of your cor- 

 respondent's observations, however, on this natural law, appear to be 

 at variance with those universally adopted by others. But as Mr. 

 Gibson seems desirous, when anxious to strengthen and confirm his 



