1923] Weatherby,— The Identity of Carex gynandra 115 
THE IDENTITY OF CAREX GYNANDRA SCHWEIN.—What must be 
regarded as the type material of C. gynandra is preserved on a sheet 
from Schweinitz’s own herbarium, now at the Philadelphia Academy 
of Natural Sciences, labelled in Schweinitz’s hand “ Carex gynandra 
N[obis] Salem, N. C." This sheet contains the tops of five culms, all 
without bases, and evidently from three different plants. Culm 1 
bears four very short pistillate spikes, 1.75-2.5 cm. long and about 
5 mm. thick. The scales are nearly or quite awnless and gradually 
narrowed at the tip, and scarcely, if at all, exceed the perigynia. 
The latter are in excellent mature condition and perfectly representa- 
tive of the form generally passing under the name gynandra. Culms 
2 and 3 are alike. Their pistillate spikes are proportionally more 
slender than those of no. 1, 4 mm. thick, exclusive of awns, and 2.3-4 
em. long. The scales are abruptly contracted into short awns. The 
young perigynia are smooth, relatively broad, and rounded at the 
apex. These specimens appear to me to be at least as well referable 
to typical C. crinita as to var. gynandra. Culms 4 and 5 are again 
alike. The spikes are longer, 3.5-5 cm. long, the scales short-awned, 
and the young perigynia distinctly granular-roughened (though not 
nerved), suggesting at least an approach to C. Mitchelliana M. A. 
Curtis (cf. RHODORA xxv. 17 (1923).) 
It is evident, then, that either Schweinitz or someone who arranged 
his herbarium after his death included in C. gynandra three more or 
less different elements. This is made still plainer by another speci- 
man at the Philadelphia Academy labelled, in a hand which neither 
Mr. Bayard Long nor I recognized, as coming from “herb. Schw[einitz] 
sub nom[ine] gynandra—4th series." This specimen is, except for 
its short scales, very good C. crinita. Such confusion is readily 
, 
explicable when it is recalled that Schweinitz in his original diagnosis 
distinguished C. gynandra solely by its short scales and was followed 
` by Torrey in his earlier work. 
Which of the three elements represented on the type sheet of C. 
gynandra should bear that name, in the present-day understanding 
of the group? Culms 2 and 3, if properly referred to typical C. 
crinita, are accounted for there. Culms 4 and 5 are referable, with 
slight doubt, to C. Mitchelliana and are similarly disposed of there. 
All are so immature as to make their determination somewhat un- 
certain. About culm 1, however, there is no possible doubt; it is in 
excellent condition and, though stunted, otherwise represents perfectly 
