124 
above, made this combination but although he then quoted no 
specimens or synonyms his previous reference in Wight, Contri- 
butions to the Botany of India (1834), p. 74, shows that the 
plant which he understood as Cyperus pumilus was not the 
species of Linnaeus but a species for which the combination 
Pycreus hyalinus (Vahl), Turrill, has to be made. In other 
words the transference was associated with specimens belonging 
to another species. This being so it seems advisable, logical and. 
in accordance with established rules to remake the combination 
Pycreus pumilus as Pycreus pumilus, Turrill, non Nees, intending 
thereby the true Cyperus pumalus, L. non Nees. C. B. Clarke in 
the Flora of British India and numerous other works on the 
Cyperaceae has accepted the combination Pycreus pumilus, Nees. 
(non Cyperus pumilus L.), not for our plant but for a species. 
whose history we have yet to trace 
In 1789 Retzius (Obs. v. p. 13.) described Cyperus nitens, &. 
species which was accepted by Vahl (Enum. Plant. ii. p. 329.).. 
Exactly what plant was intended is doubtful but probably 
Pycreus pumilus, Turrill (Cyperus pumilus, L.), was meant, 
certainly this interpretation has been the one generally — 
by specialists. Nees in 1843 (Nov. Act. Acad. C.L.C. Nat 
Cur. xix., Suppl. 1, 53) transferring Cyperus nitens, Retz to: 
Pycreus, gives a description which certainly applies to Pycreus: 
pumilus, , non Nees. This name Pycreus nitens, Nees, is. 
the one ae by C. B. Clarke in the majority of his works. The 
same species was described by Nees and Meyen as Cyperus 
pulvinatus, in Wight, Contributions to the Botany of India, 
1834, p. 74, and this was transferred to Pycreus by Nees in 
Linnaea ix. 1834, p. 283. Hence in Kew Bull. Addit. Ser. viii. 
p- 94. the name Pycreus pulvinatus, Nees, is accepted by Clarke. 
In 1806 Vahl (Enum. Plant. ii. p. 329), published under the 
name of Cyperus hyalinus, a quite distinct species which has. 
been frequently confused, as by Nees, with Pycreus pumilus, 
Turrill, (Cyperus pumilus, L.). This is apparently the earliest. 
trivial for the species recorded in C. B. Clarke’s works as Pycreus 
pumilus, Nees, and a new combination—Pycreus hyalinus, Turrill, 
has to be made in accord with the Vienna Rules, since the plant. 
is undoubtedly a Pycreus, as the genus is accepted here. 
It will be well finally to sum up the chief synonymy involved 
in the beam confusion which is unravelled above 
Pycre pumilus, Turrill, non Nees. Cyperus penile is 
Amoen. Aaad. iv. (1788) p. 302, et Sp. Pl. ed. 2. p. 69 et herb. 
propr. Cyperus nitens, Retz., bs. v. (1789) p. 13? Cyperus 
Pycreus hyalinus, Turrill. Cyperus jptoo Vahl, Enum. ii. 
(1806) p. 329. Cyperus pumilus, Nees in Wight Contrib. (1834). 
p. 74 excl. syn., non Linn. Pycreus pumilus, Nees, in Linnaea ix. 
(1834) p. 283, and C. B. Clarke in FI. Brit. India vi. p- 591. 
