142 Caricography. 
The following species, described in Vol. X. p. 284, is now figured 
from specimens in the herbarium of Dr. Muhlenberg, and from an- 
other received from Georgia. 
C. foenea, Muh. 
Tab. S. fig. 60. 
The description of this species already given, is accurate. In the 
Muh. herbarium are many specimens labelled under this name with 
a question. ‘They agree with the description given in Muh. in gen- 
eral, and they are doubtless, as they differ from the related species, 
the plantintended by him, Although he says the spikelets are subqua- 
ternate, most of his specimens have five, many have six, and some nine 
spikelets ; in this case several are closely aggregated at the summit. 
The capsules more resemble those of C, straminea, while the spikelets 
are more like those of C. scoparia ; but they are wholly remote from 
the chafflike appearance of the former. Between these two, it seems 
to be an intermediate species. 
Figures of the following species accompany this paper. 
C. decomposita, Muh,: Am. Jour. Sci. Vol.-X. p. 276. 
“ Grayana, Dewey. 
“ foenea, Muh. : Am. Jour. Sci. Vol. X. p. 284. 
Among the writers on American Grasses, the late Dr. Muhlenberg 
of Lancaster, Penn. stands pre-eminent. His work, entitled De- 
scriptio Uberior Graminum, &c., published in 1817, is constantly re- 
ferred to by succeeding writers on these genera. His Carices have 
been used as authority in the Caricography in this Journal. It is not 
surprising that many new species should have been discovered, since 
ihe plants of our country have been so fully examined by a multi- 
tude of botanists in the last fifteen years. As I have been permitted 
to examine his collection of Carices, in the possession of the Philo- 
sophical Society in Philadelphia, it will be interesting to those who 
study this difficult genus, to know the result of the examination and 
comparison of the present species with those in that herbarium. It 
will be seen that many species, not noticed in his Descriptio, are 
found among those there preserved. Some had probably been re- 
ceived after his work was written, and were to have been introduced 
on the revision of the manuscript, others he may not have satisfacte- 
rily determined. His work, honorable as it is to his name as a bota- 
