REPORT FOR 1 884. 
117 
matching an original specimen in Boott’s Herbarium of Wahlenberg’s. 
C. aquatilis , v. nardifolia (1803) i n Vet. Acad, handl. This is an 
interesting form of the variety ; but, taking the British specimens I 
have seen and the fine series in Dr. Almquist’s herbarium; I can see 
only a variety of Goodenoughii ( vulgaris ) and not a sub-species, as it 
is made by Nyman. 
Carex salina , Wg. fl. lapp. C. cuspidala, Wg. et C. salina , Wg. 
i Vet. Ak. handl. 1803*, b. kattegatensis (Fr., ind. sem. hort. ups., 
1857, sp.) Almquist in Hartman’s Handbok i Skan. Flora, ed. n 
(1879). Banks of the Wick river, near Wick, Caithness. — James 
Grant. Mr. Grant having- sent specimens for the Exchange Club, 
but unfortunately too late to be included in the distribution, it is only 
fair to him that a notice of the plant should appear in our Report ; 
the specimens will be sent out with the 1885 plants. This most 
interest addition to our Flora is an instance how easily a 4 good thing’ 
may be passed over ; I think it may be instructive to give its history, 
as a hint to any botanist not to accept any thing at sight. In Aug., 
1884, Mr. Grant sent me a specimen labelled “ C. riparia ? f at this 
time one is usually full of botanical matter with little spare time, I 
simply glanced at the glumes, and wrote to Mr. Grant “ rather 
paludosa v. KochianaP put the specimen with others, for examination 
in the winter. In December, when looking through my Carices 
(principally to take out Surrey stations for Mr. Beeby’s forthcoming 
“ Flora of Surrey”), I saw at once this was not paludosa , and after 
examination could only refer it to salina , but where under this section 
to place it I could not see, and any one who had to name salina 
forms, will understand my difficulty. I took it to Kew, showing the 
specimen to Prof. Oliver and Mr. Baker, but as neither of these 
gentlemen would say “ it was salinaP or “was not,” I felt dubious of 
my own determination, and on my return home again examined it 
still with the full certainty of its being a salina form. To put the 
name at rest, I sent it at once to Dr. Almquist (author of the 
“ Distigmaticae ” section of the genus in Hartman’s “ Hand, i Skan. 
Flora,” he returned it with the note, “ the Carex sent is C. salina v. 
kattegatensis , Fr.” This may seem out of place, but I really believe 
we pass over many things, or accept them on trust, that a closer 
investigation would show were worth recording. On sending a note 
of its discovery to Prof. Babington, he wrote “ who gathered the 
Carex salina in Caithness ? It is a county well deserving of careful 
examination, having in view the “ Flora of Scandinavia.” This is 
what I have repeatedly urged on Scottish botanists, and I fully 
believe there are at least a dozen Scandinavian species that will 
eventually be found in Scotland. C. salina is an extremely variable 
species, Nyman makes three species of it, with three sub-species, and 
numerous varieties ; I would go further and make one species, putting 
the others as sub-species. An examination of authentic specimens of 
nearly all the species described, from Drs. Almquist, Blytt, Lange, 
and Herr Nilsson, seem to me to show so gradual a passage from one 
to the other, as to be impossible to assign some specimens names. 
* This is usually quoted as Acta Holm., but any one who had to consult catalogues would be 
puzzled to find it. 
