812 



uscula," let us see how far the possession of " the fruit of paniculata" will hold good. 

 We have now before us, under the microscope, the fruit of the disputed plant, of C. 

 teretiuscula and of C. paniculata, all in a mature and perfect state. No one who has 

 examined and compared them will deny that there is a striking difference between the 

 fruit of C. paniculata and that of C. teretiuscula. The former has a rather deeply 

 cloven beat, laterally margined with a thickly fringed whitish membrane and furnish- 

 ed with a small wing on its convex side ; the ribs are also tolerably prominent, and 

 most of them extend from the base of the perigynium far into the beak : on the other 

 hand, the fruit of C. teretiuscula has a scarcely cloven beak, with rather narrow, green, 

 and sparingly serrated lateral membranes, and a prominent dorsal wing : the ribs are 

 much more obscure than in C. paniculata, and several of them cease a short distance 

 above the base of the perigynium, which appears more regular in its outline in the 

 latter plant than in C. teretiuscula, and its deeply cloven beak is very striking. In 

 these particulars the fruit of the disputed plant bears a close correspondence with that 

 of C. teretiuscula, and consequently differs as widely from that of C. paniculata. In 

 the nut, bracts and glumes we observe nearly the same degree of resemblance between 

 the two plants, and an equal degree of discrepancy between them and C. paniculata. 

 Takino- therefore all these circumstances into consideration, whatever may have been 

 our former opinion, which was founded on the examination of an insutBcient number 

 of specimens, we are bound to state that we can now come to no other conclusion 

 than that the disputed plant is neither C. paradoxa, nor a form of C. paniculata, but 

 C. teretiuscula, somewhat modified and changed in habit by the circumstances under 

 which it occurs. — EdJ] 



406. Note on Statice rarifiora. The plant alluded to in my pre- 

 vious notes (Pliytol. 429 and 492), and a specimen of which, presented 

 to the Botanical Society of London, was figured in your pages (Id. 

 561), having at length been determined, I beg to offer an observation 

 or two on it. At the time when the above-mentioned notices appear- 

 ed, I was unable to give any further information respecting it, not 

 having met with it until past flowering ; and not then suspecting it to 

 be a new species, I neglected to secure more specimens than those 

 which I subsequently transmitted to the Botanical Society. This 

 year, however, I have diligently examined the whole of the neigh- 

 bouring salt-marshes, and am now able to state that the plant in ques- 

 tion occurs in profusion in the neighbourhood of this town. I have 

 sent specimens of it to many botanical friends, and in particular to 

 Messrs. Babington and Watson. These gentlemen have kindly fa- 

 voured me with their opinions on it, and both agree in referring it to 

 Drejer's Statice rariflora. They consider it as identical with the Scot- 

 tish plant. The chief distinguishing characteristics, as I have observ- 

 ed it in this neighbourhood, are as follows : — Scape 8 to 24 inches 

 high, erect, much branched, generally below the middle ; branches 

 spreading : flowers distant, fole blue ; petals emarginate : calyx very 

 hairy, with a long tube, and five acute, somewhat lacerate teeth, also 



