REPORT FOR I909. 
477 
Sdrpus rufus, Schrad. (Blysmus). On the coast of Sligo Bay, 
locally plentiful, occasionally bracteate, June, 1909. — G. C. Druce. 
Carex diandra, Schrank. {C. teretiuscula, Good.) Peat moor, 
Shapwick, North Somerset, v.-c. 6, June i8, 1909. — J. W. White. 
Small state. — Bennett. C. diandra, Schrank, forma tenella, 
Beckm. — Kukenthal. 
Carex vitlpina, L., var. Old brick pits, Pebworth, E. Glos., 
v.-c. 33, July 18, 1909. I doubt very much if this determination 
will hold. The foliage seems not to suggest hybridity ; but the 
spikes and glumes and the apparent barrenness of the fruit do. C. 
viilpina and C. contigua grew on the spot, and I feel pretty sure 
that the specimens distributed are a hybrid between those two 
species. — H. J. Riddelsdell. The influence of C. contigua, 
Ploppe, is (to my mind) quite unmistakable, here; and that of 
C. vulpma is equally clear. C. contigua x vuipina. — E. S. Marshall. 
C. vtilpina, L., forma elongata, Anderss. — Kukenthal. 
C. contigua x remota ? Hailes, E. Glos., v.-c. 33, July 19, 
1909. This grew with C. vuipina, C. remota, C. contigua, and C. 
vuipina x remota (C. axillaris). I am not sure that it is not simply 
a paler form of the last named ; but there is some likelihood of the 
name given on the labels being right. — H. J. Riddelsdell. A 
weak C. remota X vuipina (C. axillaris. Good.); the pale glumes 
are due to the preponderating influence of C. remota. I have 
hitherto seen C. contigua x remota only from Bucks, collected in 
June, 1904, by Mr. Druce. — E. S. Marshall. There seems to be 
evidence of hybridity here, C. remota being one parent. The stems 
are too slender, and the spikelets too simple to justify the suspicion 
of C. vuipina ; but there is nothing against C. contigua. Better 
specimens (than my sheet) and a knowledge of the carices that 
grew near should make a diagnosis easy. The four or five features 
that take this off C. remota are all favourable to C. contigua, Hoppe. 
— E. F. Linton. “ C. remota X vuipina. A somewhat lax form, 
but the very rough stem with its concave lateral surfaces and the 
compound lower spikelets do not admit of C. contigua as a parent 
species.” — Kukenthal. 
Carex niuricata, L., var. Leersii (F. Schultz) ? Taddington, 
E. Glos., v.-c. 33, July 20, 1909. — H. J. Riddelsdell. Surely 
only C. niuricata, L. (C. contigua, Hoppe), the beak appears far 
too long for Leersii, which Kukenthal puts as a variety of C. Pairaei 
(called "by him C. echinata, Murr.).-— G. C. Druce. _ No; this is 
C. contigua, Hoppe. In C. niuricata, L. (Herb. Linn, et Spec. 
Plant.) and its variety, or sub-species, C. Leersii, F. Schultz, the 
fruit is much more patent, with a shorter beak ; and the female 
