312 MR. C. B. CLARKE ON CERTAIN 
Of the figures cited by Linneus, Pluk. Alm. t. 40. figg. 1, 3, is 
right; Morison, Hist. sect. 8, t. 10. fig. 20, is wrong. 
I cite the species as Scirpus mucronatus, Linn. Sp. Pl. & 
ed. 1, p. 50 (tab. Morison citat. excl.). 
Scrrrus Grossvus, Linn. f. Suppl. p. 104. 
Two sheets, marked “ grossus ” in Linneus’s hand, are 
Scirpus Grossus, Linn. f. 
Scirpus Ecutnatvus, Sp. Pl. ed. 1, p. 50, n. 16. 
One sheet, marked “16. echinatus”’ in Linnzus’s hand, is 
Mariscus ovutanis, Vahl. 
Linneus has united under the above name two plants: one, 
from Virginia, is Mariscus ovularis, Vahl; the other, from Ceylon, 
is Mariscus paniceus, Vahl. 
Sctrpus RETROFRACcTUS, Sp. Pl. ed. 1, p. 50, n. 17. 
One sheet, marked “17. retrofractus” in Linneus’s hand, is 
MarIscus RETROFRACTUS, Vahl. 
The figure cited by Linneus (Pluk. Amalth. t. 415. fig. 4) is 
right; though Plukenet says the plant came from Malabar, 
whereas Mariscus retrofractus is wholly North-American. 
ScIRPUS FERRUGINEUS, Sp. Pl. ed. 1, p. 50, n. 18. 
One sheet, marked “ Scirpus ferrugineus ” in Linneus’s hand, 
contains two plants, viz. :— 
1. Fimbristylis ferruginea, Vahl. 
2. Fimbristylis diphylla, Vahl. 
The figure cited, Sloane, t. 77. fig. 2, is right. I add Scirpus 
ferrugineus, Linn., as a synonym to Fimbristylis ferruginea, 
Vahl. 
Scirpus spapiceus, Sp. Pl. ed. 1, p. 51, n. 19. 
One sheet, marked “19. spadiceus”’? in Linneus’s hand, is 
FimMBRIsTYLISs sPADICFA, Vahl. 
The figure cited by Linnzus, Sloane, t. 76. fig. 2, is right. 
I make Scirpus spadiceus, Linn., a synonym of Fimbristylis 
spadicea, Vahl. 
Scirpus mintacevs, Sp. Pl. ed. 2, p.75, n. 22. 
One sheet, marked “ miliaceus” in the hand of Linneus, is 
FIMBRISTYLIS QUINQUANGULARIS, Aunth. 
Linneus would surely have esteemed 2imbristylis miliacea, 
Vahl, and F. quinquangularis, Kunth, one species. 1 doubt the 
