﻿374 



Carex glauca = C. flacca Schreb. — The name of this common 

 sedge is given as glauca by Nvman {C>.n.y>. 774) and Richter [L'l. 

 Europ. 160) on the authority of " Murr. prodr. goett. 7(3 (1770)," 

 and on the faith of such careful workers is likely to be retained. 

 A reference to the work cited, however, discloses no such name, 

 although Murray cites the description of Haller (Hist. no. 1408), on 

 which Schreber founded his fiacca and Scopoli his tihntm. The 

 plant must be called C. fiacca Schreb. (1771), the earliest publication 

 as .jhmra being in Scopoli's FL Cam. ed. 2. ii. 22:-} (1772). Mr. 

 Jackson rightly gives this reference as the first publication of the 

 name, but he says 0. fiacca Schreb. = glauca : had the dates been 

 added to his reference, he would not have made this mistake. 

 Those who look up Mr. Jackson's reference to C. fiacca (" Schreb. 

 Spicil. 669 ") will, however, be likely to miss the name, unless 

 they know where to look for it. " 669 " is the number of the 

 species, not of the page. The number occurs first on p. 62 of 

 the book, where the plant figures as C. pendula of Hudson— a 

 name which, as "C. pendula Schreb. Spicil. 62 = flacca" ought to 

 have been in Index Kewensis, but is not. At the very end of the 

 book, after "Addenda," "Conspectus," and an index, are two 

 pages (not numbered) of "Appendix," and here we find: "p. 62 

 § 669 ita corrigatur : 669 Carex (fiacca)," followed by a citation of 

 Hall. 1408 and other authorities, all those previously given under 

 pendula being omitted. The name of the plant must therefore 

 stand as C. fiacca Schreb. Spicil. FL Lips. Appendix, no. 669 1 1771). 

 Prof. Bailey (Hem. Ton: Bot. Club, i. 72) rightly points out the 

 priority of this name, but his citation of "Addendum" instead of 

 "Appendix" may mislead.— James Britten. 



Lathyrus hirsutus in Herts.— I enclose a specimen of Lathyrus 

 hirsutus which I gathered on a dry bank at Harpenden. It is an 

 interesting addition to the county flora.— William H. Hutchings. 



British Bubi again ! — I hope shortly to publish in this Journal 

 a paper on the Bubi list which is to appear in the forthcoming 

 edition of the London Catalogue. As that list contains three new 

 names of my suggesting, the following explanation is necessary 

 now with a view to their admission into the Catalogue. The three 

 names are Lemmas, l-'urrhasiaitu.s, and Mars/ialli.' They are for 

 plants already described in my "Essay at a Key to British Rubi" 

 {■Jonm. hat. 1892) under the respective names of Ihrj.ri, uhsmrus, 

 and Koehleri var. hirsutus. Ih, r r and nbscunts are misnomers, and 

 can no longer be applied to our plants, which as yet are unknown 

 on the Continent; while "Marshalli Eocke & Bogers" is suggested 

 for my "var. hirsutus," because the plant referred to (widely spread 

 in England) is now held by Dr. Focke to be one of our best marked 

 British "species."— W. Moyle Bogers. 



