198 MB. C. B. CLAJtKE ON INDIAN SPECIES OE CYPEETJS. 



stolonifera ; capitulo congesto ; nuce late obovoidea vel exacte 



oblonga. 



I have no specimen. I saw at Kew Hooker f. et T. Thomson 

 n. 25, and it appeared conspecific with the American specimens. 

 Here I am only copying Boeck. in Linnsea, xxxvi. p. 334. 



India Orientalis (Madras Peninsula). Mexico. Columbia. 



160. C. Balbwikh {Torrey in Ann. Lyceum New York, iii. 

 p. 270); umbella simplice; spiculis dense breviter spicatis aut 

 fere fasciculatis, substellatis, linearibus, acutis, parum compressis, 

 7-floris ; glumis ovatis, obtusis, niultinerviis ; rhachillae alis latis, 

 insolubilibus. — Boeck. in Linncea, xxxvi. p. 357. 



Bhizoma lignescens, horizontals ; culmi parum distantes, basi 

 globoso-bulbosi, 3 dm. longi. Folia angusta, viridia. Involucri 

 bracteae 6, usque ad 15 cm. longse, divaricatae. Umbellse radii 

 4-9, usque ad 6 cm. longi, tenues. Spicse 10-18 mm. in diam., 

 5-20-spiculosa?. Spieulae longa? 7-8 mm., latae 1 mm. Glumae 

 subremotse. Nux cum § parte glumae aequilonga, late oblonga 

 vel subellipsoidea, obtuse trigona, fere symmetrica, utrinque bre- 

 vissime angustata, nigra ; cellulae extimse quadratae, hyalina3. 



Florida (Chapman, Ti. Calcutta). 



New Orleans (DrwmmonA, h. Calcutta). 



New Jersey (Buckley, h. Calcutta). 



161. C. SETiroLius (Torrey, non D. Don) ; f oliis angustis cum 

 culmo sequilongis ; umbella simplice ; spiculis in apice radiorum 

 stellato-globosis, fusco-viridibus, 6-12-floris ; glumis ovatis trun- 

 catis per totam fere latitudinem multinerviis ; nuce cum gluma 

 subsequilonga, late oblonga aut subellipsoidea, trigona. 



C. Grayii, Torrey in Ann. Lyceum New York, iii. p. 260. 



C. filiculmis, var. Grayii, Boeck. in Linncea, xxxv. p. 609. 



New Jersey : Pines (A. Gray, h. Calcutta). 



In these excellent specimens, communicated and named by 

 A. Gray, the wing of the rhacbilla is very broad ; and the plant 

 appears to me exceedingly near C. Baldwinii, and very far re- 

 moved from C. filiculmis, in which the wing of the rhachilla 

 is exceedingly narrow. It is possible, indeed, that A. Gray has 

 sent the wrong plant under the name C. setifolius ; but I think 

 not. It is not the business of the present article to review cri- 

 tically American species ; but I wish to point out that in this 

 part of the series also the wing of the rhachilla has been probably 



