REPORT FOR 1 895. 
499 
considered by Dr. Almquist to be “ C. stricta, var. probably?” Subse- 
quently I met with the plant in immense masses, and a series was 
sent to Dr. Almquist in 1887, who then reported as follows: — 
“ From the revolute margins of the dried leaves this form is to be 
referred to C. stricta ; the fruit and habit, calling to mind C. Good- 
enoughii^ indicate the var. turfosa (Fries, p.p.), Almq. But it is very 
remarkable that, although csespitose, the fibrillae are wanting ; at 
least I have only seen them in solitary examples.” It is further 
suggested whether it does not pass into C. stricta^ or whether it may 
be a hybrid between it and C. Goodenowit. Both queries must be 
answered in the negative, as C. Hudsonii certainly does not occur in 
the locality. Mr. Alfred Fryer having carefully studied the plant, 
and pronounced in favour of C. Hudsonii (in the aggregate sense), 
I finally, last year, submitted further examples to Mr. Arthur Bennett, 
from whom, up to that time, I had not received any definite opinion. 
He kindly went fully into the matter, and reported : — “ I.ooking at 
all these Surrey specimens, and at others so named from Ireland 
and Cambridge, and also my continental specimens, I do not see 
how to name them otherwise than C. turfosa^ Fries , it being under- 
stood that I use the name in the same sense as Andersson.” It only 
remains to add that the specimens collected early (i6th May, 1887) 
show the filamentous network to the leaves quite distinctly, but that 
it seems to disappear later when the fruit is ripe. Although, as 
mentioned above, this plant grows in masses, it does not produce 
real tussocks like typical C. Hudsonii^ and an occasional sobole is 
found. I must apologise for the length of this note, but the plant, 
besides being a very critical form, is of some local interest, inasmuch 
as it is the only representative of the group Ccespitosce known to occur 
in Surrey. — W. H. Beeby. 
C. aquatilis, L., var. elatior, Bab. Maam, Co. Galway, Ireland, 
3rd July, 1895. — E. S. Marshall. “In this the glumes are short 
for elaiior, and show an approach to the var. virescens, Anders. ; but 
it is best referred to Babington’s plant.” — Ar. Bennett. 
C. Jiacca, Schreb. Hispid-fruited form, limestone near Clonbur, 
Cos. Mayo and Galway, Ireland, 8th July, 1895. — E. S. Marshall. 
Extremely abundant to the south of Lough Mask. Probably a 
frequent form on limestone. Koch describes C. glauca as “ fructibus 
scabriusculis,” and Babington says: “fr. slightly rough;” but this 
form goes a good deal further, so that “glabrous” becomes a 
misnomer. — Edward S. Marshall. 
C.fulva, Good., var. Hor 7 ischuchiana, Bab. Drinmore, Knock Drin, 
Co. Westmeath, 3rd July, 1895. — H. C. Levinge. “To me the 
specific and varietal names are synonyms. Surely it is an 
injustice to ascribe this variety to the late Prof. Babington ? If his 
name be used at all in this connection should it not be as ‘ Bab. 
olim ’ rather than ‘ Bab ?’ It is true that Syme separates them ; but 
he does so avowedly out of compliment to Smith, and shows con- 
