415 



LIST OF BBITISH CYPEEACE^ (EXCLUDING CAREX). 

 By C. B. Clarke, F.R.S. 



I SEND you the names of the English Cyperacea, other than 

 Carex, as they stand in my MS. of the Order. 



I have referred under each to Syme Engl. Bot. v. x. so as to 

 identify the plant meant without quoting any synonymy. His hst 

 of species exactly coincides with mine; his subspecies are only 

 varieties for me. I have one additional species only, the Sclucnus 

 fernir/ineus, lately got by Buchanan White. 



The references to Linnteus' Species Plantarum are, as has long 

 been usual in botanic literature, to the second edition. This 

 edition is Linnasus's matured view, and it is only necessary in a 

 very few cases (not at all in Cyperacem) to quote the first edition 

 also, where some other author gives the plant a name between the 

 first and second editions. 



The names of these plants will of course vary a good deal 

 according to the genera admitted. In this matter I have followed 

 Kunth, Bentham, and Boeckeler, rather than Syme ; for example, 

 I admit Eleocharis as distinct from Scirpus, while I sink Blysmus. 



But, assuming for a moment that everybody accepts the genera 

 as I limit them, there still remain, in the present small list of un- 

 contested species, a great percentage of names that may and will 

 be contested. 



1st. There is the case where a single species of Linnreus is now 

 regarded as two. The question arises whether the Linnean name 

 is to be retained for one of the two new ones. If, in such cases, 

 the Linnean name is not to be kept, we shall lose about thirty per 

 cent, of our Linnean names at once; and I cannot venture to 

 guess, under the present splitting process, how many Linnean 

 names will be left finally. In the subjoined short list, the Linnean 

 name Eriophorum polystachyon is gone, while the Linnean name 

 Scirpus setaceus is retained. I have done this because my pre- 

 decessors have done this, and it is convenient not to disturlD. It 

 will be said that the retention of the Linnean name must in these 

 cases depend on the quantity of confusion Linnaeus has imported. 

 This, like the question of sufficient description, will be measured 

 difi'erently by different minds, and presents an obstacle to that 

 finality of naming which some see their way to. 



2nd. There is the case (which very frequently arises) where 

 E. Brown gives a list of the Scirpus species which he transfers to 

 Eleocharis, but does not say what their specific names will be under 

 Eleocharis. In this case, European writers attribute the Eleocharis 

 species to E. Brown (as is done below); but the American modern 

 school refuses to admit the authority. 



3rd. There is the case where a man alters the spelling of the 

 name of the genus to which he attributes a species. My practice 

 is to accept the new spelling if the first distmctive letters of the 

 name are preserved ; but if an author alters Eleocharis to H eleo- 

 charis or liijnchospora to Bhynchospora, thus introducing trouble 



