AUTHENTIC CYPERACEE OF LINNEUS. 805 
The diagnosis and the figure of Plukenet cited are Cyp. Haspan ; 
and the species must stand :— 
Cyperus Haspan, Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 1, p. 45 et ed. 2, 
p- 66, neque herb. propr. 
Cyperus Lonats, Sp. Pl. ed. 1, p. 45, n. 5. 
One sheet, two examples, marked “5. longus” in Linneus’s 
hand, are both Juncellus serotinus (Rottb. sub Cypero). 
The figure of Morison, Hist. sect. 8, t. 11. fig. 13, is, I think, 
C. esculentus. (Certainly not C. longus, of which species an im- 
portant character is that the stem is not erect at base.) 
Rather than change the name of @. longus, Linn., I propose 
that our English plant shall be called 
Crrerus Loneus, Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 1, p. 45 partim 
(tab. citat. et exemplo in hb. propr. excl.). 
CyrErus rotunpvs, Sp. Pl. ed. 1, p. 45, n. 6. 
Two sheets, one marked “ rotundus 6” in Linneus’s hand, is 
Mariscus, perhaps Mariscus tabularis (C. tabularis, Schrad.). 
The example is young, but remote from C. rotundus. 
The other sheet, marked “rotundus” in Linnzus’s hand, is 
Cyperus esculentus. 
This species must stand :— 
Cyrerus rorunpus, Linn. Sp. Pl. ed. 1, p. 45, 
neque herb. propr. 
Cyperus squarrosvs, Sp. Pl. ed. 2, p. 66, n. 3. 
One sheet, marked in Linneus’s hand “ pumilus,” but this 
name struck out and “ squarrosus ” substituted, all in Linnzus’s 
hand, contains two things: one is a tuft of many complete plants 
of Cyperus aristatus, Roxb.; the other is a single head of aris- 
cus squarrosus. 
The plate of Plukenet cited by Linneus is probably neither of 
these. 
All that can be done with Linnzus’s name is to reduce it :— 
{ partim = Cyperus aristatus, Rottb. 
partim = Mariscus squarrosus (Linn. sub Cypero). 
Cyperus pirForMis, Sp. PI. ed. 2, p. 67, n. 8. 
Three sheets, one marked “Cyperus difformis,” the second 
“C. diformis,” the third “Scirp. deformis,” all in Linuzus’s hand 
all are Cyperus difformis. . — 
The reference to Plukenet, t. 817. fig. 5, is a misprint for 
t. 417. fig. 5, which is C. difformis. 
