1911] Fernald,— Lost Carices of eastern Massachusetts 245 
plant which we proposed as a new American variety of C. Horn- 
schuchiana (var. laurentiana Fernald & Wiegand) we unfortunately 
overlooked a paper which was published by Mr. K. K. Mackenzie in 
1910. In this paper Mr. Mackenzie had given a clear discussion ! of 
the same plant (seen by him from Anticosti and Miquelon and iden- 
tified with the Massachusetts plant of B. D. Greene which had often 
been called “C. fulva”) and proposed it as a new species, C. fulvescens, 
with the suggestion that the specimen collected long ago by Greene 
near Boston was " possibly introduced through wild fowls from further 
north," and that the old report of C. fulva from Newfoundland arose 
from finding this species there. 
In his discussion of Carex fulvescens Mackenzie points out that, in 
spite of the crisscross statements of Dewey, Carey, and others (includ- 
ing the present writer) in regard to the Greene plants, the specimen 
in the Torrey Herbarium “marked Carex Greeniana is a specimen of 
the European Carex helodes Link (Carex laevigata Smith) and has the 
long-acuminate or aristate scales of that species, in this agreeing with 
Dewey’s description, which calls for a plant with cuspidate or mucro- 
nate scales.” Thus, it may be concluded, the identity of Dewey’s 
C. Greeniana is at last definitely and satisfactorily settled. 
But the main object of these notes is to direct the attention of local 
botanists to the two plants, C. helodes Link (C. laevigata Smith) and 
C. Hornschuchiana Hoppe, var. laurentiana Fernald € Wiegand or 
C. fulvescens Mackenzie.? There is no evidence that either of these 
plants has been found in Massachusetts since their discovery by 
Greene. Whether Carex helodes (C. laevigata) was indigenous is 
questionable, since the species has not been found elsewhere on our 
side of the Atlantic. But the other plant (C. Hornschuchiana, var. 
laurentiana or C. fulvescens) which Mr. Mackenzie identifies without 
question with the Newfoundland, Miquelon and Anticosti plant, is 
strictly American and ordinarily separable by its larger perigynia 
and sharper scales from the Old World C. Hornschuchiana. 
As already pointed out by the present writer? and as previously 
surmised by Mackenzie, the plant was known to Goodenough in 
1 Mackenzie, Bull. Torr. Bot. Cl. xxxvii, 239-241 (1910). 
2? Whether the plant is to be considered an American variety of C. Hornschuchiana, 
which seems to Professor Wiegand and the writer the logical treatment of it, or a 
distinct species, as Mr. Mackenzie interprets it, is a minor question with perfectly 
sound reasons for either course. 
3 Fernald, Ruopora, xiii. 130 (1911). 
