122 
E. A. PEYOE-HEETFOEDSHIEE CAEICES. 
“This plant is scarcely removed from C. jlava. However, it 
differs from it in having the angles of the culm sharp and rough; 
the female spikes are remote, oblong, and acute, not round; the 
lowermost is supported by a long foot stalk, half of which nearly 
appears above the vagina. Besides, it has scarcely ever more than 
two female spikes. The lowermost bractea is erect, and not 
divaricated. The capsules are not divaricated, but patent, and 
are slightly divided at the summit. I regret that I have had no 
opportunity of cultivating it. I am indebted to the Rev. Mr. 
"Williams, of Eaton, near Shrewsbury, for my knowledge of this 
plant as a native of Britain. 1 have received it from America and 
Newfoundland, but I never understood till very lately that it was 
an inhabitant of our country.” * 
In this description the roughness of the culm is a character, at 
least in a lesser degree, common to C. lepidocarpa, which also has 
not unfrequently but two female spikelets, or occasionally even 
only one ; and in the case, as perhaps usually happens, of a greater 
number, the lowest spikelet is often considerably removed from 
the rest. On the other hand, both in the number of the spikelets, 
and in the length of the lowest bract (“culmum plerumqne 
sequans,” Good. loc. cit .), the plant here described recedes clearly 
from C. Hurnschuchiana, Hoppe, with which Goodenough’s species 
has been identified by some Continental botanists, and with which 
it has, as I believe, been generally confused among ourselves. 
The figure (tab. 20, fig. 6 f), as was usual at that period, is drawn 
from a plant with unripe fruit, and adds but little to our knowledge 
of its character, and, except for the longer sheath of the lowest 
bract, and the exserted pedicel which accompanies it, might well 
have been taken from an ordinary example of immature C. jlava. 
A new species was thus introduced into our flora, closely allied 
to C. Jlava ; nor was any other relationship indicated by its author. 
The question was, however, reconsidered, and three years later, 
and after the receipt of additional specimens from the same corre- 
* ‘ Linn. Trans.,’ yoI. ii, p. 177. Bead 3rd April, 1792. 
t Goodenough’s plate is copied by Schkuhr (‘ Biedgraser,’ tab. T, No. 67) ; 
he has added, however, a figure of C. Hornschuchiana , from which the details, 
and especially the very characteristic female glume, are taken. In the copy that 
I have seen (the Linnean Society’s, formerly in the possession of J. Woods) the 
difference of colouring in the two plants is well preserved. Schkuhr quotes 
C. trigona of Allioni (‘FI. Ped.,’ 2325) as a synonym, a name that, if rightly 
referred, would take precedence (1785) of that of Goodenough. The female 
spikelets are said to be “ manifeste et perfecte trigonae, qua nota facillime a 
proximis speciebus distinguitur,” which does not apply to any British specimens 
of the so-called fulva that I have seen. In the figure (tab. 89, f. 4) the upper 
bracts are very short, while the lowest is disproportionally long, and greatly 
exceeds the male spikelet, but this perhaps is an accidental deformation; in other 
respects it is notunlike G. Hornschuchiana . The same synonym has been referred 
by Beichenbach, I know not on what grounds, to his fulva, which he distinguishes 
from Hornschuchiana. On the other hand, Degland quotes C. trigona as well as 
Haller’s “ C. Culmo foliisque firmis erectis, spicis fcemineis quaternis longe 
petiolatis erectis” (‘Nomencl.,’ n. 1383) under his C. fulva , which is not that of 
Beichenbach, and the description obviously cannot be applied to Goodenough’s 
plant. 
