31 



The other character by which the type and \ ariety are 

 separated is that of the upper portion of the flowering stem, 

 this being in type trigonous, in variety triquetrous; so far as 

 my own experience serves there is no real difference between 

 the upper portion of the flower-stem of the Sutton plant and 

 that of ordinary C. tevetinsciila, and I notice that this is also the 

 case with the Groby Pool plant. 



Further I may say that living plants w^ere sent from Sutton 

 to the Rev. E. F. Linton ; these, I believe, he grew in his 

 ponds at home for two seasons, and found as I have stated, 

 that the plant when deprived of excessive humidity reverted to 

 typical C. teretiiisciila ;^rA I believe I am correct in saying that 

 my specimens were submitted to a continental expert w^ho 

 pronounced them to be merely a state ot C. teretitiscula. So 

 that I think that the Groby Pool plant as well as the Sutton 

 Park plant are mere states and not varieties. 



The above remarks merely apply to the Warwickshire 

 and Leicestershire plants ; it w^ould be presumptuous on my 

 part to say anything on the plant that used to grow near 

 Manchester, that is described as having triquetrous stems, 

 figured by Syme as triangular with hollow sides; the plants I 

 speak of have, as I think, triangular stems throughout and 

 differ from genuine teretinscula merely in their more tufted habit, 

 but as I said the alteration of surroundings seems to cause the 

 plants to become scattered instead of tufted in habit. 



I find it still in Sutton Park at Long Aloor Alill Pool, 

 where the conditions have not been altered by drainage, still 

 showing the same tufted habit, but I have not been able to see 

 even there any real difference in the flow^ering stem character. 

 —J. E. Bagnall. 



(3). x\s bearing out the above remarks of Mr. Bagnall, 

 Mr. Crawford wrote as follow^s Avith regard to his specimens : 

 "Luffness is very flat and marshy, and I noticed that in the 

 drier parts all the specimens were single, but where the plants 

 were on the edges of pools and in much w^etter situations they 

 were in tufts." 



The w^hole of the above material was submitted to the 

 Rev. E. F. Linton, who reported: — "Mr. Bagnall kindly 

 investigated the Sutton Park var. Ehrhartiana for me and 

 supplied me a root ; I understood from him that in a dry season 

 (or under drainage?) the supposed ^^Ehrhartiana'' relapsed into 

 C. teretiitscida ; certainly my plant proved this species and no 

 variety. 



The description of var. Ehrhartiana contains no feature of 

 varietal importance; and I suspect that the more tufted 



