896 



more anxious to do, since the opinions which I then gave were has- 

 tily conceived, as hastily expressed, and drawn from the examination 

 of an insufficient number of specimens. I think it right to mention 

 this, because there is a possibility that in more than one instance the 

 opinions at that time privately given, may be found to be at variance 

 with those subsequently formed. 



Last summer I received from Mr. Sidebotham, of Manchester, 

 specimens of some Carices on which he requested I would give him 

 my opinion. At that time I happened to be much engaged, and was 

 consequently unable to bestow on the specimens the attention which 

 the subject required. Among them were examples of the disputed 

 Carex from " Seam on's moss-pits ;"* and these I could refer to no 

 other species than Carex teretiuscula,t believing it to be that plant 

 with its habit somewhat changed by local or other circumstances, in 

 consequence of which the inflorescence had assumed a more elongate 

 form than usual. Believing this, I was somewhat surprised to learn 

 from Mr. Sidebotham, that some of his botanical friends, as well as 

 himself, considered the plant to be the C. paradoxa ( Willd.), which 

 had then been recently introduced to the notice of botanists in Mr. 

 Babington's Manual, as an established British species, found in Ire- 

 land. After strenuously endeavouring to discover a correspondence 

 between the Manchester specimens and the description of C. para- 

 doxa as given in the Manual, I began to think that the difficulty lay 

 with myself solely, and that none was presented to others possessing 

 better information on the subject. This led me, though reluctantly, 

 to acquiesce in the opinion that it might be Carex paradoxa. Soon 

 after this I was still more surprised to learn fi'om Mr. Gibson, that 

 the plant from Manchester was identical with the one to which he al- 

 ludes as having " its fruit agreeing with Leighton's figure of the fruit 

 of C. paniculata" (Phytol. 366), since I was not then aware that Mr. 

 Gibson restricted the use of the iexra fruit to the mU only, and I had 

 always applied the term to the perigynium and its included nut. 



■* I believe tliat this locality has not previously been given in ' The Phytologist,' 

 by any of the botanists who have written on the subject. I now mention it without 

 hesitation, since, from the circumstance of the locality being expressly stated on the 

 labels accompanying all the specimens of the plant that have come under my notice, 

 it appears to me that there has been no attempt to make anything like a secret of the 

 matter. 



f Certainly not to C "paniculata, as by an extract from one of my letters to Mr. 

 Sidebotham, it appears I once wrote. That this was merely a lapsus calami is evident, 

 I think, from the context. I cannot plead guilty to having ever considered this plant 

 a variety of C. paniculata. 



