146 
than usual. In 1916, I gathered a bit of a plant on 13th June, 
and the stem flattened in drying, while the spikes had two and 
three interruptions. I gathered another piece of the same 
plant on 26th June, and the stem has remained triquetrous, 
while the spike closed up. I do not say that the specimen 
from Whitchurch is wrongly named, but would have cultivated 
a root in an open situation to see if it retained its characters.— 
— J. Fraser. 
Carex contigua Hoppe ? [2660]. First gathering, July 20, 
1931. Railway bank, Brislington, N. Somerset. Stems thin 
and wiry. Utricles 3-3. 5mm. — H. S. Thompson. I would 
say that my specimens are C. contigua because the perigynia 
are scabrous on the edges of the beak but not lower down. 
The specimens must have been starved in a very dry situation. 
I have no quite similar specimens. — J. Fraser. I would 
suggest that this is C. Pairaei Schultz. — A. J. Wilmott. 
These (2660 and 2661) are both C. Pairaei F. Schultz, but the 
fruits in the accompanying envelopes are different and belong 
to C. contigua Hoppe. — H. W. Pugsley. 
Carex contigua Hoppe. [2661], Second gathering, Aug. 25, 
1931. Railway bank, Brislington, N. Som. Great clumps 
beaten down by the wind and rain, with slender fruiting 
stems 3-4ft. long. Utricles glossy 5. 5-6. 0mm. long, with a 
beak of nearly 2mm. Leaves more filiform than usual. I 
regret the confusion of fruits and possibly labels in these two 
gatherings. — H. S. T. The fruits sent me seem right. — 
J. E. Little. 
Carex contigua X vulpina ? [2663]. Growing with both 
parents at corner of two roads S. of Whitchurch, N. Somerset, 
June 15, 1931. See Report 1924-25, p. 314, and Report 
1925-26. — H. S. Thompson. The sheet received show’s two 
different plants : (1) C. vulpina L. with very brown spikelets, 
and (2) very young C. contigua Hoppe. I cannot see any 
symptom of hybridity in either specimen. — H. W. Pugsley. 
Mr. Thompson’s label refers to a gathering of 1922, of which 
I can find no notice in the Report of that year. But in Report 
1924-1925, p. 314, his gathering [4423] from the same locality 
is commented upon. (The 1922 specimens were not sent in 
until 1924. — H. S. T.). Would he kindly summarise for the 
Report the points of the respective species which he finds 
eombined in the hybrids ? — J. E. Little. 
