811 



own opinions, to have the able assistance of yourself, I feel that I 

 cannot do better than submit the merits of this question to your de- 

 cision. For this purpose I have sent perfect specimens of Carex pa- 

 niculata and C. teretiuscula, as well as of C. pseudo-paradoxa {Glhson)^ 

 and I shall be greatly indebted to you, and so, I have no doubt, your 

 readers will also, if you will give them your most careful attention, and 

 favour us with the results in the next number of * The Phytologist.' 

 You will perhaps have the goodness, especially to record on that oc- 

 casion, the degree of similarity which you may observe between the 

 fruit of C. paniculata and the " new species," as the decision of this 

 point is a matter of some importance. I must not forget to notice the 

 rather invidious assertion of your correspondent as to the secrecy 

 which he says is maintained respecting the habitat of this very pseu- 

 do-paradoxical plant. No such thing as secrecy has been shown at 

 all ; — there was nothing to keep secret, and Mr. Gibson was never re- 

 fused to have the place made known to him, the individual to whom 

 he applied for that purpose merely declining to accompany him there, 

 because he could not leave his business on a market-day, without 

 great loss and inconvenience : to no one else did Mr. G. apply. — J. 

 B. Wood; Broughton, November Qjld)^'^. 



[After the decision arrived at by the eminent botanists above cited, it seems to be 

 a work of supererogation for iis to say a word on the subject; at least we cannot 

 suppose that our opinion will add much weight to either side of the question : but 

 since Dr. Wood has done us the honour thus publicly to appeal to our decision, it 

 would savour somewhat of affectation were we to withhold the result of a very careful 

 examination and comparison of the beautiful specimens forwarded by him, as well 

 as of others previously received. Premising then that as we have never seen the 

 plant named Carex paradoxa, and know nothing of it except from the short descrip- 

 tion in Mr. Babingtou's ' Manual,' and Schkuhr's figure, we are quite unable to say 

 from actual comparison of specimens how far the disputed Manchester plant agrees or 

 disagrees with that species. We must also state that as we have not enjoyed the op- 

 portunity of observing the disputed Carex in a growing state, our remarks must of ne- 

 cessity be confined to the dried specimens now before us. The first thing which struck 

 us in the Manchester plant, as indicating a difference between it and the usual state 

 of Carex teretiuscula, was the more elongated spike — panicle we cannot call it — of 

 the former. This occurred some months ago, and since that time we have had an op- 

 portunity of seeing a tolerably extensive series of specimens, including those now sent 

 by Dr. Wood, which show that the plant usually known as C. teretiuscula, is by no 

 means constant in this respect, and that a regular gradation may be traced from the 

 most dense spike of the one plant to the most elongated form of the other, but we have 

 hitherto met with no approach to the mode of inflorescence of C. paniculata. A com- 

 parison of the roots, stem and herbage, equally fails to indicate any identity in the 

 disputed plant with C. paniculata, while it goes far to establish a very close connexion 

 with C. teretiuscula. Since then this plant has undoubtedly " the form of C. tereti- 



