﻿36 
  c. 
  A. 
  M. 
  LINDMAN. 
  REGNELLIAN 
  CYPERACE^. 
  

  

  Carex 
  iiivolucrata 
  Boott 
  var. 
  subnmricata 
  C. 
  B. 
  Clarke. 
  

  

  Exp. 
  1. 
  Regn. 
  A, 
  471, 
  609, 
  Rio 
  Grande 
  do 
  Sul, 
  Porto 
  

   Alegre, 
  solo 
  graminoso 
  subpaludoso, 
  oct. 
  — 
  nov, 
  1892. 
  

  

  »Est 
  Carex 
  muricata 
  Boeck. 
  in 
  Linnsea, 
  39, 
  1875, 
  p. 
  87 
  

   (Selloi 
  exemplnm). 
  Est 
  Carex 
  sororia 
  P. 
  Maury. 
  — 
  Carex 
  

   sororia 
  Kth 
  differt 
  bractea 
  ima 
  brevi 
  setiformi 
  (forsan 
  non 
  

   specifice 
  diversa). 
  — 
  Carex 
  bracteosa 
  Kth 
  differt 
  utriculis 
  

   usque 
  ad 
  apicem 
  subconspicue 
  nervosis. 
  — 
  Carex 
  muricata 
  

   L. 
  parum 
  differt 
  bractea 
  ima 
  breviorej>. 
  C. 
  B. 
  Clarke 
  in 
  

   sched. 
  Herb. 
  Regnell. 
  

  

  Carex 
  cladostachya 
  Wahlenb. 
  f. 
  polystachya 
  (Wahlenb., 
  

   spec). 
  — 
  Pl. 
  VI: 
  3. 
  

  

  Regnell 
  III. 
  1325, 
  Minas 
  Geraes, 
  Gäldas, 
  dec. 
  184:5, 
  febr. 
  

   1857. 
  

  

  MosÉN 
  4564, 
  ibidem, 
  in 
  silva 
  csedua, 
  loco 
  subsieco, 
  febr. 
  

   1876. 
  

  

  Aceording 
  to 
  a 
  statement 
  made 
  by 
  Mr. 
  Clarke, 
  he 
  bas 
  

   never 
  seen 
  tbis 
  plant 
  nor 
  tbe 
  typical 
  Carex 
  cladostachya 
  from 
  

   Brazil 
  before. 
  The 
  plants 
  coUected 
  b}^ 
  Regnell 
  and 
  Mosén 
  

   are 
  »tbe 
  same 
  as 
  Pringle 
  1840 
  from 
  Oaxaca, 
  Mexico, 
  issued 
  

   by 
  the 
  american 
  botanists 
  as 
  specifically 
  different 
  from 
  Carex 
  

   cladostachya 
  (Bailey 
  in 
  Proc. 
  Amer. 
  Acad., 
  22, 
  1886, 
  p. 
  98, 
  99)». 
  

  

  Tbe 
  two 
  species 
  of 
  G. 
  Wahlenberg, 
  C. 
  cladostachya 
  and 
  

   polystachya 
  (K. 
  Sv. 
  Vet. 
  Akad. 
  Handl., 
  1803, 
  p. 
  149), 
  wbicb 
  

   bave 
  caused 
  botanists 
  some 
  trouble, 
  were 
  fonnded 
  on 
  notes, 
  

   written 
  hy 
  O. 
  Swartz 
  in 
  bis 
  herbarium 
  (now 
  at 
  Stockbolm); 
  

   it 
  must 
  be 
  confessed, 
  however, 
  that 
  the 
  specimens 
  in 
  Herb. 
  

   Swartzii 
  not 
  are 
  quite 
  fit 
  for 
  a 
  comparison, 
  one 
  of 
  them 
  (iC. 
  

   polystachya») 
  being 
  in 
  a 
  ver}^ 
  3'oung 
  stage 
  (^^et, 
  this 
  plant 
  

   is 
  in 
  every 
  respect 
  much 
  larger 
  than 
  the 
  »cladostachya»). 
  F. 
  

   BooTT 
  (in 
  bis 
  magniiicent 
  work 
  Illustrations 
  of 
  the 
  Genus 
  

   Carex, 
  London 
  1858 
  — 
  1867) 
  evidentl}^ 
  did 
  not 
  know 
  both 
  per- 
  

   fectly, 
  as 
  he 
  admits 
  himself, 
  and 
  with 
  his 
  illustrations 
  the 
  

   distinction 
  beconies 
  quite 
  problematical. 
  L. 
  H. 
  Bailky 
  (in 
  

   Proc. 
  Amer. 
  Acad., 
  vol. 
  14, 
  part 
  1, 
  1887, 
  p. 
  98, 
  99) 
  has 
  endea- 
  

   voured 
  to 
  distinguish 
  them, 
  saying 
  that 
  »the 
  C. 
  polystachya 
  

   differs 
  in 
  its 
  strict 
  cidni, 
  much 
  stiffer 
  and 
  nearly 
  smooth 
  

   leaves, 
  more 
  numerous 
  spil-es, 
  which 
  are 
  fulvous 
  in 
  colour 
  and 
  

   more 
  or 
  less 
  crowded 
  and 
  appressed, 
  and 
  in 
  its 
  longer 
  beaked 
  

  

  