233 MACKENZIE: NOTES ON CAREX 
are more worthy of separation than any of the plants already dis- 
cussed. One of these plants from the region of the Great Lakes 
has long been in my collection under the name of Carex tetanica 
var. Woodii (Dewey) Bailey. Moreover, from the description and 
key it is without doubt the plant treated as Carex tefanica by Herr 
Kikenthal inthe Pflanzenreich.¢ In that excellent work the key 
character used to separate Carex divida Wahl., and Carex vaginata 
Tausch from Carex polymorpha Muhl. and Carex tetanica Schk. (as 
there treated) is the following : 
‘*« Vaginae inferiores clare brunneae foliiferae ”’ 
“« Vaginae inferiores purpureae aphyllae.”’ 
This key works excellently and brings out very characteristic 
features when applied to all the species except the real Carex 
tetanica. Any one examining it will soon see that both it and 
Carex Meadii have the lower sheaths conspicuously leaf-bearing 
and do not have the sheaths strongly purplish tinged. On the 
other hand the plant of the Great Lake region above referred to 
does exactly answer this description. Not only is this true but it 
further differs from the real Carex tetanica in being loosely stolon- 
iferous. The stolons are stout for the size of the plant, are strongly 
purplish-tinged, and very readily pulled up. Contrasted with this, 
Carex tetanica has very deep-seated slender white running root- 
stocks. Anyone who has ever collected the plant will know how 
hard and tedious an undertaking it is to get to these rootstocks. 
In fact it is so hard that most herbarium specimens do not show 
them at all. The plant of the Great Lake region is evidently 
worthy of recognition and is therefore here proposed as 
- Carex colorata sp. nov. 
“ Carex tetanica Schk.”’ Kikenthal, in Engler, Pflanzenreich 
4”: 514. 1909. 
Culms arising in loose stools, slender, 3-5 dm. high, aphyllo- 
podic, strongly purplish-tinged at base, strongly stoloniferous, the 
stolons purplish-tinged and with loose sheaths, near the surface of 
the ground and readily pulled up, the culms usually noticeably 
+ After writing the above I was favored by Prof. Macoun with a loan of the speci- 
mens of this group from the herbarium of the Geological Survey of Canada, and found 
that the above statement is correct, Macoun’s No. 33,639, the first specimen cited by 
Kiikenthal under C. ée¢anica, not being that species but the species here described. 
