paniculd minore, and Scheuchzer only stating under his
No. 2, that a plant (which he does not appear to have seen),
reported to differ from his No 1 (E. latifolium) only by its
smaller, rather shorter and narrower spikes, may probably
be identical with Tournefort’s. Wahlenberg, in his FI. Suec.
gives E. polystachyon y. Linn. FI. Suec. as a syn. of E.gracile,
but assigns no reason: whereas Linnaeus adopts without description
or remark the No. 3 of Scheuchzer, Linagrostis
palustris angustifolia, &c., evidently the E. angustifolia of
Roth and Dickson, which Wahlenberg himself regards as
E. polystachyon, Linn., a judgment confirmed by the three
specimens in the Linnean herbarium. To the last-mentioned
species probably belongs the E.gracile, Engl. Bot. t. 2402.
The specimen there figured is preserved in the Smithian herbarium,
and we believe it the same as a plant with few and
small spikes on smooth peduncles, common in Wales and
apparently in Scotland, and occurring even in Sussex and
Surrey, the E. angustifoilum y. alpinum oligostachyum, we
presume, of Gaudin, FI. Helv. and 8 of Koch’s Synopsis.
Should this prove distinct, as Gaudin suspects it may, oligo-
stachyon may be adopted as the trivial name. Bertoloni and
some others appear to confound this with the true E. gracile.
—MV. B.