280 ‘THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
Germ. Fl. Paris, 613 (1845) = E. neo pi on L. B. congestum 
M. et R. Deut. Fl. 456, 1828. Cosson and Germain say, ‘ Epillets 
sessiles ou seslnh sessiles, sepa Aa. which does agree with 
your plant. Of course it may be that Fries’s and Poiteau’s plants 
are the same, but this could only be made sure of by comparison of 
typical specimen s of each, a difficult matter. I believe, however, 
you may safely name your nate as I suggest.”” Wh ssattae r growing 
alone, or in company with /. angustifolium, the var. triquetrum may 
be easily detected. It is a slender and rather diminutive plant, the 
seems no justification for this. Roth (Catalecta ii. addendum [p- 259] ) 
says that the plant was first observed by Koch, ‘‘ qui mecum speci- 
mina cum observationibus suis benevole communicavit’’; but he 
does not say that Koch suggested the cays nor does wh attribute 
it to him in subsequent citations. Koch himself (Koch & Ziz. 
Cat. Pl. Palat. [3], (1814) cites it as ic Rott Sash seo 
lia ed. 2, a; vite 2s he on “ eres oth.” e Ind 
Kewensis, gives the date of the Cat 1108, but, alshowst the 
preface is dated clas = Ge at we 5 have been unable to find 
any evidence that the book was published before 1800—the date on 
the title-page; and Mr. Bennett — not remember where he found 
reason to = 1799. The name £, triquetrum Hoppe (Taschen- 
bueh, 1800, 106) . sometimes "pisiniie ed to E. gracile, but there 
seems no sagas © suppose it can claim priority. Roth does not 
cite the twa kasd for 1800 in his paper on Eriophorum (Neue 
Beytriige, i. 92 (1802) ), and does not include in it F, Jesolises 
Hoppe, which was published in the Taschenbuch for 1800. 
cites E. Scheuchzeri Rocks from the Taschenbuch a 1799 (p.. 109) 
—a reference earlier than that given in the Index Kewensts—but 
makes no allusion 2 its description in the 1800 ee and these 
facts suggest that the 1800 ase peta was not published at the 
time Roth wrote hig paper.—Eb. Nn. Bot.] 
Carex montana L. 1x Cor eon. several years 1 have un 
successfully acanehedl the ot pioeading site of Cornwall for this 
species. Mr. Arthur oy Ba sends me the welcome tidings 
that he has is: specimens, which by sheer accident he found mixed 
with a gathering of Luzula ls, forwarded from Cornwall by the 
late Mr. William Curnow, and labelled ‘‘Hustyn Wood, near 
Bodmin, East Cornwall, May, 1878.’’ Mr. Curnow was evidently 
unaware of the presence of this little rarity, and it had quite 
escaped Mr. Bennett’s notice until recently, when he had occasion 
tb Aen zula material to deal with a query from one of 
his Sc . Mr. Bennett refers the specimens to C. mon- 
tana LL. forma flavida Waisbecker in Oesterr. Bot. Zeitschr. xlv. 109 
(1895). The only British specimens he has seen which in any way 
approach those from Cornwall are from Roborough Downs, South 
Devon. Hustyn Wood, where Mr, Curnow gathered his specimens, 
