923 



]ieculiarites in the locality and manner of growth of this plant have 

 already been explained by Dr. Wood, (Phytol. 809) ; and it appears 

 from the evidence before me, that the root has been acted on in that 

 locality more than any other part of the plant. For in my numerous 

 specimens from that spot I find the inflorescence undergoing precise- 

 ly the same changes as 1 have before stated to be common in the true 

 C. teretiuscula. The perigynium is equally variable in its form and 

 markings with that of C. teretiuscula, — the number of ribs varying 

 from four to six or seven, and the breadth at the base being more or 

 less great in proportion to its length ; but the perigynia of the two 

 agree precisely in their general outline, their cordate base, and their 

 scarcely notched beak with its serrulated margins Fig. e (p. 919) 

 represents a perigynium of the disputed plant ; it is the broadest form 

 I have met with, but there are regular gradations from it to the nar- 

 row form figured at c, and the same form I have not unfrequently met 

 with in the normal state of the species. The nut, too (/), so fiir as I 

 can see, is perfectly identical in the two plants. There are the same 

 variations in outline, and, what is of perhaps greater importance, the 

 base of the style in the two plants is enlarged in precisely the same 

 manner. Figs, d and /"show almost the extreme forms, and these, 

 like the perigynia, I find to be connected by very regular grades. 



Tn addition to the above characters I may remark that the culms, 

 foliage, bracts and other parts, together with the general habit of the 

 two plants, are all strongly indicative of the closest afiinity, nay, even 

 of specific identity. 



In the ' London Catalogue of British Plants,' by the Botanical So- 

 ciety, published since the above notes were written, the disputed Ca- 

 rex stands as var. h. pseudo-paradoxa, under C. teretiuscula. This is 

 doubtless its true place, if allowed to retain an existence separate from 

 the normal form : for as a distinct species it certainly appears to have 

 no claim to a station in our Flora. 



Before I conclude I may perhaps be allowed to point out the very 

 slight resemblance between the fruit of this plant and that of Carex 

 paniculata (Phytol. 778, &c.) The comparison was certainly rather 

 unfortunate, except so far as relates to the sectional likeness between 

 the two; for a comparison of fig. y with 6, will at once show a marvel- 

 lous difference in the outline of the nut of Carex paniculata and that 

 of the disputed plant, a diff'erence, indeed, as great as that existing 

 between the two perigynia represented by a and c. The discrepan- 

 cies are so striking, that, coupled as they are with other marks of dis- 

 tinction equally if not still more obvious, we cannot but wonder that 



