E. A. PEYOE—HEETFOEDSHIEE CAEICES. 
125 
in tlie straight beak of the seed, longer female spike, and rougher 
stem,” one is clearly genuine and well-developed lepidocarpa, with a 
divaricate bract, and a deflexed beak to the perigynium. 
The same uncertainty will be found to prevail at the present 
day. On the Continent the name fulva has been used indifferently 
as a synonym for C. Hornschuchiana , which has certainly nothing 
in common with the original description of Goodenough, as well as 
for the flava-Ytke. plant which has been contrasted with it; the two 
standing generally as distinct species. Dr. Hooker places his 
C. fulva as a subspecies of distans, taking apparently the Smithian 
view; while Babington seems rather to have had an eye to the 
flava alliance. Both authors have reduced C. Hornschuchiana to 
varietal rank. Dr. Boswell has described C. Hornschuchiana, 
Tausch., under the name of C. fulva,* Goodenough, and quotes 
Koch f as an authority, although referring to Keichenbach’s figure 
of 11 fulvaf J which was drawn from a specimen from Hoppe 
himself, and even to the ‘ English Botany ’ plate, which reappears 
with altered fruit in his own pages. Eor his var. /3, which he 
distinguishes mainly by the longer pedicels, he gives a reference 
to Beichenbach, n. 621 (C. Hornschuchiana from Hoppe), but “had 
Smith not described it as a species” would “certainly not have 
noticed it even as a variety.” § His third form will be mentioned 
hereafter. It is more difficult to come to any exact conclusion as 
to the opinion of Dr. Boott, whose description has apparently been 
drawn up with the object of reconciling the conflicting aspects of 
the subject, and whose beautiful illustrations were, I think, 
evidently selected with a view to the same end.|| He describes a 
typical plant for which he quotes Goodenough and Smith ; a sterile 
variety distinguished only by its abortive perigynium; and a 
third form, the C. Hornschuchiana of Hoppe .** He quotes the 
analyses of Smith, Hoppe, and Koch, and concludes that many of 
the characters are not to be depended upon.ff I cannot help 
* “ G. fulva of British authors is liable to he confounded, not only with G. distans, 
hut also with small specimens of G. hinervis.' n —Syme, ‘Eng. Bot.,’ vol. x, p. 154. 
f ‘ Syn.,’ 889. J ‘ Icon,’ vol. viii, No. 620. 
§ Syme, ‘English Botany,’ vol. x, p. 153. 
|| The figures of G. Hornschuchiana (‘ Must.’ pt. 4, tab. 443) are not very 
characteristic of the general habit of that plant; one specimen has crowded spike- 
lets as in some form of G. flava. 
H “The distinction between them is the yellow ventricose perigynium with 
its abortive achenium in the var. as contradistinguished from the ultimately 
brown perigynium with its perfect achenium, in what I have considered the 
type ” ( lb ., p. 137). 
** A specimen in hb. Borrer, labelled, by Coleman, “ G. speirostachya fide Boott, 
"Woods, &c.,” is binervis. It is mentioned in Coleman’s correspondence as “a 
Carex which Dr. Boott pronounces to be C. speirostachya of Sm., a species he is 
somewhat inclined to join with G. fulva ; to me it seems far nearer to G. binervis ” 
(Coleman MSS. Corr., 1846). Another specimen in hb. Boott, labelled by 
Coleman “ G. speirostachya f seems to be distans. 
ft “ Your G. fulva is admirably expressive of its {fulva) character, and at the 
first glance impressed me with a specific difference. But if you look at Koch’s 
description you will see how verbally alike it and his, C. Hosteana are, and how 
probable it is that intermediate forms would occur which would he difficult to 
