262 Mackenzie : Notes on Carex 



different names for many years, but has never been fully described. 

 Collections made during the last ten years have much extended 

 our knowledge of the plant, and have shown that it has a wide 

 range, and is one of the characteristic species of the alpine sum- 

 mits of the Rockies. The chief distinctions between it and C. 

 leporina may be contrasted as follows : 



Culms 1-3 dm. high, the leaves bunched near base ; blades 1.5-2 mm. 

 wide, more or less involute. 



Culms 1.5-4 dm. high, the leaves not bunched ; blades 2-3 mm. wide, 

 flat. 



C. phaeocephala. ' 



C leporina. 



Two names have been ascribed to this species at different times, 

 but neither of them can properly be used. 



1. Carex Preslii Steud. Plant. Cyp. 242. 1855. The author 

 of this species based his description on Presl's C. leporina L. 

 (Reliq. Haenk. 204. 1830). His description can be applied to 

 several North American species of Carex found in the Nootka 

 Sound region, where the plant was obtained, and to apply it to the 

 present plant is pure guess-work. It is to be noted, too, that he 

 does not place the species next to Carex leporina, which was, of 

 course, well known to him, but in a section " species quoad sec- 

 tiones et affinitatem minus notae, partim omnino dubiae." The 

 original specimen seems to have disappeared (Bailey, Mem. Torrey 

 Club 1 : 52), and, in any event until it is located, the name should 

 be disregarded. 



2. Carex petasata Dewey, Am. Jour. Sci. I. 29: 246. 1836. 

 As this is one of the earliest published species of Carex from 

 the Rocky Mountain region its identification is important. Of 

 it Professor Bailey says : " The original sheet is in Herb. Torn 

 It contains three plants : C. lagopina Wahl., C. /estiva Dewey, 

 and C. Liddoni Boott, to all of which Dewey's description will 

 equally apply " (Mem. Torrey Club 1: 52). Concerning this I 

 should say that the description calls for a plant with a " com- 

 pressed," " slightly winged " perigynium, characters hardly ap- 

 plicable to C. lagopina, and as Dewey described C. /estiva in the 

 same paper we can hardly refer C. petasata to it. The facts con- 

 cerning this sheet seem to be that Drummond, the original collec- 

 tor, mixed C. petasata and C lagopina (Torrey, N. Am. Cyp. 393) 

 and that the specimen of C. /estiva on the sheet, which was col- 











