Bibliographical Notices. 405 



species interest more persons in this quarter of tlie world than do 

 the others, althoiigh the examination of them is not perhaps of so 

 much value to the general botanist as the illustration of the less- 

 known American and Indian species. 



C. coispitosa (Linn.). — The opinion of Fries is confirmed, that the 

 Linnaean plant is that which was called C. pacijica by Drejer ; not 

 the C. vulgaris as long supposed by British botanists, nor C. striata 

 (Good.) as suspected by Gay. Although this species is extensively 

 spread throughout the North of Euro])e, it has not as yet been detected 

 in Britain. Scottish botanists should look for it in peat mosses. 

 Indeed Fries states that he has received a specimen from Scotland ; 

 but Dr. Boott has been unable to discover one in any British herba- 

 rium. We may add that our rather extensive searches after it in 

 nature and in herbaria have not led to any better result. It is said 

 to be very constant in form. C. vulgaris is known to be exceedingly 

 variable. 



C. fenella (Schkr.).— Good figures of this plant and its ally C. 

 loliacea (Linn.) are most valuable. The former has long passed by 

 the name of C. disperma in America, where it is abundant. In 

 Europe it seems to be confined to Scandinavia, and to be rare even 

 there. The name of C. tenella is found in Smith's ' English Flora' 

 as given by Mr. G. Don to a plant gathered by the river Esk in For- 

 farshire. No other botanist seems to have found it ; nor is it even 

 mentioned in Gardiner's * Flora of Forfar.' Dr. Boott does not 

 notice it ; and Hooker referred it to C. remota, but gives no reasons. 



C. evoluta (Hartm.) is thought to be a probable hybrid between 

 C. riparia or G. paludosa and C. filiformis. The Swedish plant 

 has certainly very much that appearance. We have not seen the 

 plant from Mennecy, which is supposed by Cosson and Germain to 

 be the C. evoluta (Hartm.), but referred by them as a variety to 

 C. filiformis, where also Dr. Boott seems to place it. 



In the second part there is a most interesting and valuable series of 

 descriptions and plates of some rather diflScult European species, viz. 

 C fuliginosa, C. laxa, O. livida, C. limosa, 0. rarifiora, and C ma- 

 gellanica (C. irriyua). We cannot make extracts, but commend the 

 original to the careful study of those who feel an inclination to adopt 

 Bentham's views and would with him combine C. irrigua and C. rari- 

 fiora with G. limosa. Bentham does not even condescend to say a 

 word about the former (which Boott considers to be essentially sepa- 

 rate from C. limosa), and calls the latter simply a high northern 

 variety. Here we see the difference between the careful observer of 

 species and he who would reduce their number at any cost. Let Mr. 

 Bentham follow the example of Dr. Boott and tell us the reasons 

 upon which he founds his opinions, and we shall gladly examine into 

 their cogency, and, if possible, adopt his views. In the case before 

 us we believe that he is totally wrong in running counter to the 

 opinions of all the botanists who have really studied the plants. But 

 we must apologize to our readers for going out of our way on this 

 occasion. That we dislike autocracy and arbitrary decrees as much 

 in botanical as in political life must be our excuse. 



