* 
78 BENNETT : CAREX AQUATILIS IN LAKE LANCASHIRE. 
the flora of Kerry and that of Livonia or Ingria are quite unlike a 
to other species. 
zy 
notes that both himself and Dr. Boott had some hesitation in com- 
bining ‘ the aguatilis of the Clova mountains with the lowland plants 
from the Clyde and Almond rivers,’ and he remarks that Dr. Boott 
has made a note against two specimens from the Almond river, ‘very 
like stricta (Lam.) of America.’ Even more like the American plant 
are those from the Perthshire Isla, West Sutherland, and Donegal. 
The specimen I possess for Mid Perth, named by Dr. Almquist 
‘ C. aquatilis epigejos Vaest. f. videtur’ (on the labels themselves) 
are puzzling. In the Fl. Fennica, p. 270 (1895), Dr. Almquist says: 
of this ‘Genuina (= C. aguatilis x rigida) apud nos incerta videtur.’ 
If this statement is correct, it seems difficult to accept the Scot 
plant as such, coming as it does from ‘The White Myre of Methven.” 
One can scarcely think of rig/da in such a position ; aguatilis would 
be likely enough. The Perth plant, to me, looks much more like 
what would be produced by such plants as aguatilis x Goodenovtt 
Jjuncella. Almquist says that this hybrid = C. arcuata Laest. (Bid 
Kann. Tornea Lappm., p. 43, 1860). On a specimen named l 
the late Dr..B. White ‘the mountain form of C. aguatilis’! from 
Caenlochan, I noted on the label, ‘Is it not near C. /imuda Fr. 
What is this? C. aguatilis v. epigejos Fr.? or C. rigida v. inferalpina 
Sea 
In Fries’ original description of ‘ Carex epigejos, Botaniska Notiser, 
p- 105, 1843,’ he gives as a synonym ‘ C. aguatilis Hooker, Brit. 
Flora, ed. 4, p. 336’; as the then known station for aguatilis was 
* Tableland above Caenlochan, Forfar,’ it is likely enough that Fries 
had seen a specimen. Of course, this cannot be absolutely rel 
on, as he also gives as a synonym ‘ C. aguatilis epigejos Laest + 
Act. Holm., p. 339, 1822.’ This is now known to be a form of 
aguatilts, not salina. 
r. Almquist has written on this label—‘ Certainly to be brought 
to the former ; leaves very like the latter.’ I quite agree that this 
cannot be put to aguatilis. Both Nyman and Almquist agree that 
Fries’ epigejos = C. bicolor Ny\. (non All.), and is referable to sadind 
My remarks were noted on the label in August 1895. I now thit 
that my middle suggested name may be the correct one (1 
<pigges Fr.), but without specimens before one named by the author, | 
S 
