- 123 
Following C. B. Clarke in Hooker’s “ Flora of British India ” 
and elsewhere the genera Pycreus and Cyperus are being kept 
distinct for the present as a matter of convenience, although it 
is realized that Pycreus is polyphyletic, its species having been 
derived from various sections of the genus Cyperus, by reduction 
of the trigonous nut and 3-fid style to a laterally compressed 
biconvex nut and 2-fid style. Similarly the genus Juncellus is 
composed of species derived from several different sections of 
one sense, artificial. On the other hand they are convenient, 
definitely delimited and therefore easily determined. If they 
are not accepted the species belonging to them have all to be 
reduced to the already unwieldly genus Cyperus, or a fresh 
generic classification of the Cyperaceae has to be evolved. It is 
probable that this last suggestion will eventually yield a working 
classification in accord with phylogenetic principles but for the 
present it is impracticable. It is to be further noted that a 
reduction of Pycreus and Juncellus to Cyperus logically implies 
other reductions. Mariscus must be sunk in Kyllinga, or both 
genera in Cyperus. Courtoisia and Torulinium also become 
involved and the final result is the reduction of all the genera of 
the tribe Hucypereae to the one genus Cyperus. Lastly, it 
appears to the writer to be no improvement to reduce some or 
all of the above mentioned genera to Cyperus and to keep them 
as “Sections” within this genus. This course is followed, for 
example, by Pax in Engler and Prantl “ Die Natiirlichen Pflan- 
zenfamilien ’’ ii. 2., and implied by the arrangement of species 
in Britton, ‘‘ Sedges of Jamaica ” and Cooke “ Flora of Bombay. 
The genus Pycreus was established by Beauvois in Fl. Owar. 
ii., p. 48. (1807) and the species Pycreus polystachyos is well 
figured at tab. 86. and being the only species mentioned by 
name is to be considered the type of the genus. To the genus 
Pycreus Nees in 1835 (in Linnaea ix, p. 283) transferred without 
comment a number of species previously placed in Cyperus and 
amongst these was Cyperus pumilus. This name was first used 
by Linnaeus (Linn. Amoen. Acad. iv. p. 302, 1759 and Sp. Pl. 
ed. 2. p. 69, 1762) to designate a small Indian species. The 
description and a reference to a figure of Plukenet’s (Pluk. alm. 
179. t. 191. f. 8.) leave no doubt as to the plant intended. The 
Linnean Herbarium contains one sheet written up in Linnaeus 's 
hand-writing ‘‘ Cyperus pumilus.” On this sheet one original 
Specimen, pasted down, is the plant represented by Plukenet 
(1. ¢.) and the plant generally accepted as C. pumilus, Linn. 
A second fragment added later with a pencil note “ Hort. 
Fothergill 1778 Fairbairn J.E.S.’’ is Cyperus flavescens, L. 
What Linnaeus intended by Cyperus pumilus is therefore clear 
and pumilus is the earliest specific name for the species, which, 
according to the Vienna Rules, must on transference to Pycreus 
become known as Pycreus pumilus. Nees, in 1835, as mentioned 
