REMARKS ON THE ‘CYBELE HIBERNICA,’ 815 
superiora lanceolata acuta uninervia sessilia. Flores micropetali ; 
pedicelli fructiferi calycem subequantes basi exacte refracti ; a 
t 
herbacee, foliis summis similes. Calyx basi truncatus; sepala acuta 
late scarioso-marginata petalis equilonga. Capsula m., ger 
duplo Semina ferruginea echinulata subauriformia, dorso 
concava. Inter species monotogas ad C. fragillimum proximum. 
ab. Boghar and Daia, in Algeria. 
106. C. Epmonsront Murbeck & Ostenfeld, ap. Murbeck, Nord- 
europ. form erna af sliigtet Cerastiwm, in Bot. No tis. 1898, 246. 
I do not think that this plant is sufficiently characterized to be 
raised to specific rank. It was first described by H. C. Watson as 
a variety of C. chee (Edmonston, Fl. Shetl. 29 [1845] ), and he 
does not seem to be far wrong in his estimate of its systematic 
position. It certainly seems identical with C. arcticum, and Shet- 
and speci at which, Mr. E. 8. Marshall says, cover large patches 
in the island of Unst, agree very well with the figure of C. arcticwm 
in Fil, Danica, t. 2968 3 (1 — Whether the latter is an hybrid 
Between two form ms of C. alpinum, or a local form of C. latifolinom, is 
i gard 
C. latifolium as a British plant, and have seen ‘specimens 
north of Scotland which well vaaich specimens from the Alps of 
French Savoy, the Alps of Kiistenland, and from Lapland, except 
only in the size of the seeds. 
(To be continued.) 
REMARKS ON THE ‘CYBELE HIBERNICA,’ Ep. 2: 
A REJOINDER. 
By Naruanren Cotean, M.R.I.A., anp R. W. Scutry, F.L.S. 
We have read with much interest the comments on the new 
edition of Cybele Hibernica contributed Ka our friend the Rev. E. 8. 
Marshall to last month’s issue of this Journal. 8 We were never 
sanguine enough to suppose that our judgments on the claims of 
claims of each species were weighed with the greatest idiborsdiad 
before we —* to assign to each what we held to be its proper 
lace in 
: It is Seis haaenine to say that objections coming from Mr. 
Marshall are worthy of serious attention, and that we have given 
his ‘‘Remarks” all the attention they deserved. We have failed, 
however, to find in them any fresh evidence or any fresh arguments 
sufficient to induce us to alter our decisions. A detailed examination 
of these objections would occupy too much space here, and would 
necessarily drift into personalities, since the habit of mind of indi- 
