1122 



Lane House, Luddenden, 



Near Halifax, Sept. 13, 1844. 



Sir, 



While I have my pen in my fingers, just allow me 

 to contradict a misstatement in Mr. Gibson's paper (Phytol. 1039), 

 where he says that I " asked Mr. Sidebotham for my Carex pseudo- 

 paradoxa, and he sent him specimens under that name." This is not 

 correct ; nor did I ever tell Mr. G. so. Once, when I was in com- 

 pany with Mr. Sidebotham, he gave me a single specimen (the only 

 one I ever possessed) of that plant, which he chanced to have by him. 

 Soon after which, I had the opportunity of seeing Mr. G.'s specimens, 

 when I said to him that they looked different from the one which Mr. 

 S. had given me, little thinking that he would betray me in the way 

 he has done, as I did not consider myself a competent judge, and any 

 one knows the difficulty of judging from a single specimen, especially 

 when that specimen is in an imperfect state. I have asked Mr. G. 

 for a specimen of the plant, but he never would give me one. 



As Mr. Gibson upbraids Mr. Sidebotham with making mistakes, I 

 would caution him to beware of making them ; for I have a specimen 

 of Carex paniculata in my herbarium, which he gave me under the 

 name of C. teretiuscula, labelled with his own hand. This was 

 either a mistake, or something worse. At that time both the above 

 species were strangers to me. 



Samuel King. 



[Although the above communications scarcely require a comment, yet we cannot 

 refrain from saying in reference to the first part of Mr. Gibson's note, that we hardly 

 comprehend how a botanist, in consulting Baines's Flora, could possibly know that 

 Carex paradoxa was intended by the Carex teretiuscula recorded in that work, seeing 

 that the name of the plant is unaccompanied by any note, or mark of doubt, expres- 

 sive of its imperfect accordance with the descriptions. We may also embrace this op- 

 portunity of stating, that having hitherto printed Mr. Gibson's contributions in so full 

 a manner as they certainly would not have commanded, had not a cry of unfair deal- 

 ing been raised by some of that gentleman's admirers ; and having thus manifested 

 our desire to afford Mr. G. ample opportunity of defending himself from attacks which, 

 we are sorry to say, he has, in most cases, provoked ; — we must now consult the 

 wishes of the majority of the readers of 'The Phytologist,' by reducing within reason- 

 able limits, any future contributions with which we may be favoured by Mr. Gib- 

 son. — £■(?.] 



