867 



cal Society of London," being the same as the one 1 alluded to (Phy- 

 tol. 741), and there is no doubt of Mr. Tatham's having been led into 

 the error by some of the botanical works alluded to by Mr. Watson ; 

 but after this I would say that the plant sent by Mr. Tatham to that 

 Society, was neither the H. pulmonarium nor the H. maculatum of 

 Smith ; the latter plant does certainly grow about Malham-cove, and 

 in cultivation remains perfectly unchanged; this is the H. maculatum 

 of our gardens, and if it be not a distinct species, it will be a variety 

 of H. sylvaticum, Stnitli. It differs from the one which has been mis- 

 taken for Hypochoeris maculata, in having its stem leafy, and in hav- 

 ing more numerous flowers. In all the specimens which I have seen 

 of the other plants, the stems are without leaves, and as I have said 

 (Phytol. 741), the plant is not described by any writer on British 

 plants. — Samuel Gibson ; Hehden Bridge, December 9, 1843. 



436. Note on Carex pseudo-paradoxa. I am sorry to be so much 

 at variance with Dr. Wood, in respect to several of his remarks on my 

 Carex pseudo-paradoxa, I do not understand what is meant by his 

 saying, " and considering myself in some degree obliged to maintain 

 the correctness of the Flora of this neighbourhood," unless he would 

 say that I have stated something relating to the Manchester Flora 

 which is not correct; and this I have not done, neither do I wish to 

 do it. It appears that the Dr. and myself differ in our opinions as 

 to how far Carex teretiuscula and my C. pseudo-paradoxa may or 

 may not be considered distinct as species. Here I might ask what 

 number of parts, and which of them, shall be looked upon as charac- 

 teristic ? But as that question has so often been asked, and no one 

 can answer it, I will leave it as it is, and turn to the Dr., who has not 

 noticed many particular parts of my C. pseudo-paradoxa, and those he 

 has noticed will go to prove that it is a very different plant from C. 

 teretiuscula. I did not notice the roots of my plant in the descrip- 

 tion which I gave of it (Phytol. 778), although I had been previously 

 informed of its singular mode of growth ; this I declined, as I did not 

 wish to describe anything which I had not seen myself. The roots 

 are the first which the Dr. takes notice of; he tells us that C. tereti- 

 uscula has a distinct mode of growth, and on the contrary that C. pa- 

 niculata has roots which form dense and elevated ceespites : he then 

 says, " so far as my observations extend, this difference in the roots 

 :s permanent." After this he tells us that my C. pseudo-paradoxa, in 

 the place where it is found, " has not the opportunity of displaying 

 its characteristic property of isolation, and is compelled to increase 

 by a regular approximation and aggregation of its roots." He also 



