SoC Ku/'th Ainci'lciin CiipcracecE, 



SciRPUS ciilinoancii)ito, &;c. GionJ jl, v'trg. p. 10. 



Culms ccspitosc, 6 — 18 Inches high, often spreading or procuniljetifi 

 much compressed, scubrous on the edges. Leaves flat, very acute, 

 nearly a line in brcadtli, shorter than the culm, smooth ; slieaths slightly 

 bearded at llie throat. Umbel mostly decompoimd; the rays about an 

 inch long, comj)ressed; secondary rays bearing 1 — 3 pedunculate spikes 

 with a sessile one in the fork. Livolucre Ibliaceous, one of the leaves 

 ,fi;enerally longer than the umbel, the other shorter. Spikes 11 line long. 

 ■Sceilcs ferruginous, prominently keeled, with tlie mucronate point some- 

 what spreading. Stamens 2. .SVy^ equally 3-cleft. i\^i/< minute, convex 

 on the sides, generally covered witli depressed capitate warts, especially 

 towards the base and summit. 



Hab. Bogs and lov/ grounds, particularly along rivers; 

 rarely in dry situations ; Massachusetts to Florida. Near Boston, 

 Bigelov); near the city of New York, and in New Jersey ! ; 

 District oC Colambia, Dr. BahJu-'rn! ; Kentucky, Dr. Short.'; 

 near St. Louis, IMissouri, T. Drnmiuond! ; Alabama, Dr. 

 Gates! 



Obs. Nearly allied to 2\ complanata, N. ah Esenb. i/i 

 Wio-Ju^s coutrlb, p. 103 (Scirp. complanatus, T'ahl,) but that 

 species is a much larger plant, the cidni is far more ancipital, 

 the scales broader and not mucronate, and the nut tricjue- 

 trous. In my specimens from New Jersey, the nut is covered 

 with singular, somewhat stipitate tubercles, having a depression 

 at the top. They are less conspicuous, (being chiefly situated 

 near the base of the nut) in a dwarf autumnal form of the plant 

 found by Dr. Baldwin in the district of Columbia. In some 

 fine specimens collected in Alabama by Dr. Gates, they are 

 very distinct, while in a variety for which I am indebted to Dr. 

 Short, the nuts are nearly smooth. The plant here described 

 is now regarded as a distinct species from T. nutumnaUs (Sc. 

 autumnalis, Roftb.), as Willdenow long since suspected it to 

 be, and as Michaux con^idered it: I have therefore adopted 

 the specific name of the latter botanist, in preference to tliat of 

 N. ab Esenbeck. 



