R. A. PEYOE—HERTFORDSHIRE CAEICES. 
123 
spondent, Goodenough took occasion in his second paper on our 
native Carices to give expression to a decided alteration in his 
views. “When,” he remarks, “ I inserted C. fulv a as a distinct 
species, I did it in consequence of a variety of specimens sent me 
by my friend Mr. Williams, all of which being nearly the same 
as that represented in the figure given in my former paper, and 
entirely corresponding with my foreign specimens, I concluded 
that I had nothing further to discover. Mr. Williams has since 
sent me specimens of more forward growth, which prove it to be a 
variety of C.flava. In the figure of my former paper, it is repre¬ 
sented with three female spikes; it very seldom has more than 
two. I would wish, therefore, to correct the article of C. fulva , 
and make it a variety of C. jlava :—C. flava, var. f3, spicis fcemineis 
duabus.”* And he would thus appear to have relied mainly upon 
the reduced number of spikelets to differentiate his former fulva 
even as a variety from C. flava. Accordingly, in the following 
year (1796) we find Withering arranging C. fulva as var. 2 of 
C.flava , and supplementing his notice with the important statement 
that “ Dr. Goodenough has authorised me to say that having 
cultivated the C. fulva he is convinced of its being only a variety 
of the C. flava.” f 
Such, then, was finally the result of the application of the 
conclusive test of cultivation to the British specimens of the 
supposed new species; while, of the American examples, “It is 
remarkable,” to quote the suggestive words of the illustrious 
monographer of the genus, “that Goodenough originally received 
C. fulva from America, and that the late Mr. B. D. Greene found 
it some years back near Boston, and that no one has since met with 
it there or elsewhere in the States.” J Whatever view, therefore, 
we take of this identification of the Boston plant, it may well be 
questioned whether the American fulva was anything more than 
a transitory phase of some other species. 
There can be little doubt that the claims of C. fulva to specific 
rank were fully and finally withdrawn by their original author, as 
having been founded on a misconception resulting from the exami¬ 
nation of plants of immature growth. Sir James Smith, however, 
seems to have been of a different opinion. In his ‘Flora 
Britannica’ (1804) he remarks of C. fulva (vol. iii, p. 991), 
“ videtur species a C. flava distinctissima ” ; and adds, “very 
common in Mearnshire [Kincardine]. . Prof. S. Beattie, junr.,” to 
Goodenough’s previously-recorded station. The two localities are 
repeated without any addition in his ‘ English Flora ’ (1828, vol. iv, 
p. 108), where it is said to be “not very unfrequent,” and is 
stated to be “more allied to C. distans and speirostachya than 
to flava,” and to be undoubtedly very distinct, although confounded 
with all three species, so that neither the recorded places of 
* ‘ Linn. Trans.,’ vol. iii, p. 77. Bead 6th January, 1795. 
f ‘ Bot. Arr.,’ ed. 3, vol. ii, p. 99. 
X Boott, ‘ Illustr. Carex,’ pt. iv, p. 138. 
