868 



says that " as we approach the water, however, it begins to separate 

 itself into masses of various sizes, and in this manner assumes a pseu- 

 do-csespitose appearance." This is, I think, carrying the thing too 

 far ; first to tell us that the character of a plant is permanent, and 

 then in the very next sentence to tell us how this permanent charac- 

 ter can be changed. Here I must beg of the Dr. to stand on even 

 ground, as I shall allow him nothing for supposition, unless he would 

 allow me to suppose that the roots of my C. pseudo-paradoxa might 

 be the roots of C. paniculata, in a modified form. This calls to me- 

 mory the story of the oat being so much modified as to become rye. 

 The next thing the Dr. takes notice of, is " its elongate and slender 

 stems, and its more racemose mode of inflorescence : " this, he says, 

 led him and the friend who was with him to suspect it might possibly 

 be something new to them. There is nothing here but what will go 

 to prove my plant to be very different from C. teretiuscula. The Dr. 

 says that the plant has a more racemose mode of inflorescence ; our 

 editor tells us it has a spike — panicle he cannot call it. Now I will 

 see what characters it must have to be a spike, &c. If it be a spike, 

 the sessile or nearly sessile flowers are borne immediately upon an 

 axis. Is our plant so? — No. If it be di panicle, the flowers are borne 

 upon peduncles, which are variously branched, and seated upon an 

 axis. Is our plant so? — No. If it be a raceme, the flowers are borne 

 upon pedicels, which are generally single-flowered, and these again 

 upon an axis. Is our plant so ? — No. If it be a thyrse, the flowers 

 are in a panicle which is very closely compacted, so as to form an 

 oval head. Is our plant so ? — Yes. The specimens now before me 

 have their inflorescence composed of about six spikelets, two or three 

 of the lower [ones] are again divided into about five or six spicula. 

 This I called a panicled spike (Phytol. 778), and this perhaps would 

 be a better term, as thyrse is not in common use. The next part of 

 the plant which is taken notice of by the Dr. is the fruit. Here I 

 have to enquire what the Dr. means us to understand by the fruit ? 

 For Sir W. Hooker, in describing the fruit of our Carices, takes no- 

 tice of nothing more than the perigynium. Sir J. E, Smith makes a 

 distinction between the fruit and the seed ; when he speaks of the pe- 

 rigynium he calls it the fruit, when he speaks of the nut, he calls it 

 the seed. When Mr. Babington speaks of the fruit of a Carex, he 

 means to be understood as speaking of the perigynium and nut toge- 

 ther; and when he speaks of them separately, he expresses it as such. 

 When I speak of the fruit of a Carex, I speak of the nut only, as I do 

 not consider the perigynium any part of the fruit. If the Dr. is to be 



