216 Bibliography. 
ten two-toothed or cleft. 5. The floral envelopes, or rather scales, are 
not distinguishable into two well-defined series, (calyx and corolla;) 
and their number is very variable; the innermost series (corolla of 
Klotzsch and Tuckerman) not unfrequently consisting of three scales, 
and the others of 5 to 10 successively imbricated scales. A. Gr. 
8. Enumeratio methodica Caricum quarundam : species recensuit et 
secundum habitum pro viribus disponere teniavit Envarpus TuckER+ 
man, Jun. LL.B. etc. etc. Schenectadie: 1848. (pp. 21, 8vo.)—This 
pamphlet we believe is not formally published, but was printed for pri- 
vate distribution among the author’s botanical friends. It is the result 
of an attempt—in most respects very successful—to effect a natural 
distribution of the species of the vast and difficult genus Carex. aes 
Tuckerman adopts the following primary sections. 
1, PsyLLOPHORES, eae ) nr unica ereeonocne endroxyan 
s. dioica. Stigmata 2-3. 
(2. Vienzz, (Koch.) Spiculee plures poniiien androgyne, in spicam 
continuam, s. interruptam, s. paniculatam disposite. Stigmata 2. 
Steed <i eeanaPoge (mihi.) Spicis compositis ramosis ramisque Betti 
rogynis, apice masculis 2-3-stigmaticis. Wahl. 
ns . Lapranmuee, (mihi.) Vigneas inter et conven Signa 2, 
rarissimé 3. 
5. Leeitimz, (Koch.) Suseis sepiiedlacn sexu distinctis, rarits 
aR Spica terminalis feré wrdetes meperene nune aay 
_. These sections are mostly divided into subsections, and the Lestettial 
to minor groups, amounting to fifty-one in number, which (except those 
of the first section) are not. furnished: with diagnoses,—and really it 
would prove no easy task to characterize them,—but are distinguished 
by the names of their leading species. Many interesting critical re- 
marks are interspersed among, and follow the systematic: portion; and 
four new species are indicated, viz. C. alopecoidea, (= C. cephalo- 
phora, var. maxima, Dew.,) C. neglecta, (aff. C. trisperme and C. Dew- 
eyane,) C. Monile, (= C. bullata 6. ? Torr. and Gr.) and C. Torreyt, 
(= C. pallescens ?) .The proposed arrangement of the C. straminea 
group is perhaps the best that can be done with it; except that C. ari-- 
distinguish 
da will renew its claim to specific distinction, We cannot 
C. Meadii, Dew. from C. panicea. In conclusion, we must be allowed a 
to express our strong dislike of the attempt to change, in one or two 
cases, long established specific names, because they conflict with the 
Linnean canons and other excellent rules. “ C. scirpina” may be @ 
better name than C, scirpoidea, Miche, (although nomina Barbaro-Lat- 
ina are as expressly forbidden by the canon as Barbaro-Graeca,) and 
