92 
Doccment 7, but it is printed from the very same type, which has 
been double-leaded so as to extend the first 178 pages of the 
original (the remainder not being reproduced in the third edition) 
to 230 pages. As in Document 7, the lithograph plates and map 
are by E. Weber & Co., Baltimore. The botanical appendix oc- 
cupies pages 179 to 211. 
The three editions of Emory’s report give evidence of sharp 
practice on the part of the printers. Of the two issued as public 
documents, the second, instead of being corrected upon the type 
pages so as to incorporate the necessary changes, was wholly reset, 
the government doubtless paying the cost of double composition. 
The type pages of the second edition, after suitable leading, were 
used in issuing a third edition under the name of the New York 
-_ firm, who thus avoided the expense of composition. 
FREDERICK V. COVILLE. 
WASHINGTON, D. C, 
A neglected Carex. 
By Evucene P. BICKNELL. 
In his‘‘Analytical Table” (1824) Schweinitz published the name — 
Carex typhinoides. No description of the plant appears beyond 
that which is afforded by five formal propositions of the « Table” 
which lead up tothe name. The outline thus presented proves 
to be too lightly sketched to fix with certainty the identity of the 
plant intended, nor is there to be found in the “ Monograph” of 
Schweinitz and Torrey, subsequent to the “ Table” by only two 
years, any hint as to what the plant may have been. Later 
caricologists have referred the name to Carex squarrosa as a 
synonym. 
The absence of any allusion to the name in Schweinitz and 
Torrey’s “ Monograph” would now be hard to explain were there 
not still in existence a letter written by Schweinitz to Torrey bear- 
ing on precisely this point. This letter is now on file at the 
Columbia College Herbarium and bears date “ Bethl[ehem, Pa.], 
July 6 1824.” I quote as follows; “I have very carefully revised 
the Carices this season, but have no other corrections to make of 
