
          are one & the same. Indeed, the descriptions
of both authors, are almost
identical. Both [refer?] it
as from C. canescens L., it is evidently
C. canescens var. alpicola of
Wahl.

And more than all, C. vitilis
is my C. sphaestachya [sphaerostachya?], a plant
found with & considered long a var.
of C. canescens; & [?] here & in
Europe a species from its palpable
vitilis character & some others.

Soon as I read C. vitilis in
Fries, I saw it could not be
C. disperma, as our friend Boott
had written to Sartwell, & as C.
calls it in Richardson's Arctic
Expedition; for he confounds just
such things as did Schk. in his
Supplement, when he made C. loliacea
L. & C. tenella the same,
& the greater mistake of confounding
C. gracilis Shck. with them.
Boott avoids this last. It is
evident too that C. gracilis Shck.
as given by Schk. from [?].,
        