126 
E. A. PKYOE-HEETEOEDSHIEE CAEICES. 
thinking that the original difficulty as to the C. fulva of Good- 
enough and Smith is at the bottom of this confusion ; and Smith’s 
own specimens certainly contributed not a little to confirm any 
previous bias in this direction. 
In these doubtful circumstances it seems better to drop altogether 
a name which was abandoned as a mistake by its original author 
and has now lost all fixedness of application. 
III.— Caeex xanthocaepa, Degl., in Lois. Gall., vol. ii, p. 299;* 
F. Schultz, in Flora, 1854, p. 471. C. fulva , Hoppe, in Flora, 
1824, p. 593; Koch, Syn., p. 884 ; Boreau, FI. du Cent., p. 676. 
Our Hertfordshire examples exactly agree with those in Schultz’s 
i Herbarium Normale ’ (cent. 4, No. 378). There are specimens in 
hb. Boott which are “ admirably expressive of the fulva character ” 
(Boott MS.). Those from another locality in hb. Borrer have been 
marked by him as “ very near to C. flava .” The lower pedicel is 
often much shorter than in Degland’s description. I have found 
it growing in much wetter places than the next. It is especially 
luxuriant near Sawbridgeworth, where it is accompanied by 
C. lepidocarpa. 
IY.—Caeex Hoexschuchiaxa, Hoppe, in Flora, 1824, p. 599; 
Koch, Syn., p. 884; Boreau, FI. du Cent., p. 677. C. fulva, 
F. Schultz, in Flora, 1854, p. 471 ; and Hb. Normale, cent. 4, 
No. 379! C. speirostachya, Sm., Eng. FL, vol. iv, p. 98. 
In drier situations than the preceding, and much more generally 
diffused throughout the county, as seems to be the case also in 
Cambridgeshire. 
C. xanthocarpa f differs from C. JETornschucfiiana in its denser 
growth and more tufted root-stock; in the more luxuriant herbage 
of a brighter and lighter green; in the roughness of the upper 
name” (Boott, in letter to Coleman, 1846). If the verbal similarity of Koch’s 
descriptions is to he taken as evidence of the identity of the plants described, this 
is not the only species to be erased from our flora. The specimen itself will he 
noticed under C. xanthocarpa. 
* “ C. radice subrepente tenaci, culmo pedali obtuse triquetro superne aspero 
canaliculate, foliis planis rigidulis, vagina truncata, spica mascula tereti utrinque 
acuta, foemineis subternis ovatis, infima longius pedunculata vix dimidie vaginata 
basi interdum ramosa, bracteis foliaceis culmo longioribus ore oblique ligulatis, 
utriculis striatis flavescentibus rostro tenui bidentatis squamam trinervem cordato- 
lanceolatam superantibus, fructu turbinate-triquetro fusco. 
“Badix subrepens fibris longis barbata. Culmus pedalis striatus obtuse 
triqueter superne scaber hinc canaliculatus. Folia plana rigidula acuta duas 
circiter lineas lata, vaginis truncatis. Spica mascula solitaria teres utrinque 
acuminata cinereo-flavescens, squamis obovatis obtusis margine superiore mem- 
branaceis. Spicae foeminese plerumque binge remotae ovatse, infima longius 
pedunculata haud infrequenter ramosa, suprema subsessili. Bractese foliaceae 
culmum superantes. Yagina hiatu oblique ligulata. Utriculi oblongi striati, in 
rostrum exile hispidulum attenuati, obiter emarginati. Squamse trinerves cordate 
lanceolatse utriculo vix breviores. Fructus turbinato-triqueter fuscus.”—‘ Flora 
Gall.,’ vol. ii, p. 299 (ed. 2, 1828). 
The Cyperacese in Loiseleur’s Flora were described by J. Y. Degland, Professor 
of Botany at Bennes. 
t This description was drawn up before I had made myself acquainted with 
Hoppe’s remarks in the ‘Flora’ for 1824, with which it will be found to 
coincide in several particulars. 
