Note on Car ex loliacea. 21 



mistake he had made in figuring as C. gracilis, something differ- 

 ent from the Ehrhartian plant;) and, following the cue which 

 had been given him by Swartz, Willdenow, and Thunberg, erro- 

 neously referred them both to C. loliacea, Linn. Under that 

 species, consequently, these two synonyms have been generally 

 cited ever since, notwithstanding the discrepancy in the posi- 

 tion of the staminate flowers, which in C. gracilis, Ehrh^ (C. te- 

 nella, Schk.,) are correctly described by Schkuhr as at the apex; 

 while those of C. loliacea are rightly characterized by Wahlen- 

 berg and Willdenow, and indeed by all succeeding writers, as 

 occupying the base of the spikelets : and the difference in the 

 perigynia, &c. of the two species is not less decisive. Yet even 

 Wahlenberg has unguardedly adduced the synonym in his Flora 

 Lapponica; where he has given a further and most excellent 

 account of the genuine C. loliacea, particularly contrasting it with 

 his own C. tenuiflora, which is indeed the nearest related species. 

 He notices the " squamce albica?ites 1 omnium tenuis simcB," and 

 well describes the perigynia as follows: "Capsulae in singula 

 spicula 3 vel 4, ita obtusae ut apice fere rotundatae, utrinque con- 

 vexiusculae nervosae, ob formam suam seminibus Lolii temulenti 

 hand dissimiles, ut nomen omnino bonum."* 



While the C. loliacea, Linn., is, so far as I am aware, re- 

 stricted to the north of Europe, the C. gracilis, Ehrh. has ap- 

 parently a wider range and is mucl! more abundant in the new 

 world than in the old. It is the well-known C. disperma, of 

 Dewey; who, while he noted its resemblance to C. loliacea, 

 Schk., (tenella, Schk.,) conceived it to be distinct by its termi- 



nal staminate flowers — a point in which it does indeed differ 



mistook for it. 



Schkuhr 



The two plants are so distinct in appearance and character, 

 that the wonder is they should have been so long confounded. 

 But I know of only two botanists who have distinguished them, 



nan 



former 



information is indirect. Ruprecht, in his recent critical enumera- 

 tion of the plants which grow around St. Petersburg, has a u Ca- 

 rex tenella, Schkuhr, et Fl. Petropol. Bene diversa est a C. loli- 

 acea, L., utrasque exposuit cl. Nylander in Spic. FL Fenn., ii, No. 

 92 et 93. "f I have no acquaintance with the work of Nylander 

 here cited, nor do I know its date ; but I possess, through the 

 kindness of Dr. Fischer, specimens ticketed " Car ex pulchella, 

 Nylander: ad oppidum Sardavalse, Finlandiae," which exactly 

 accord with the American C. disperma, and, so far as recollection 



* Wahl. Fl. Lapp., p. 232. — Tn his Flora Suecica, he further adds, that the 

 " capsules are a line and a half long," which is fully one-third longer than are 

 those of C. gracilis. 



t In Historiam Stirp. Fl. Petropol. Diatribae, p. S4. 1845. 



