MACKENZIE: NoTes ON CAREX—XIII 345 
it has been so used by Sanio (Bot. Centralbl. 6: 438. 1881). 
Kiikenthal, the latest author to deal with the question, followed 
the German habit in dealing with puzzling names and gave the 
name up altogether (Pflanzenreich 4%: 313, 319. 1909). 
In addition to the fact that the variety migra is given ahead 
of the variety ruffa by Linnaeus, there are two other facts 
which European authors have not referred to, as far as [ know, 
which are of much importance in settling the proper use of the 
name, as follows: 
1. The description in the Species Plantarum is very largely 
copied by Linnaeus from his earlier work, the Flora Suecica, 
with the very important change that he reversed the order of 
the varieties. In other words the descriptive phrases, which 
in the Species Plantarum are used as the foundation for the 
variety nigra, are given in the earlier Flora Suecica after the 
descriptive phrases, which in the Species Plantarum are used as 
the foundation for the variety ruffa. And these phrases in the 
Flora Suecica are separated as varieties a and @ in reversed 
order from that followed by the author in his later work, when 
he came to apply the binomial system. He could hardly have 
shown more strongly what plant he had primarily in mind when 
he coined the name Carex acuta. 
2. It can readily be seen that Linnaeus took the names of 
his varieties nigra and ruffa from the older descriptive phrases 
cited by him, but the name acuta is not taken from any of these 
descriptive phrases, and it was not until I looked up the de- 
scription of Carex nigra verna vulgaris, given by him in F lora 
Lapponica, page 257, that I found the undoubted source of the 
name in the following short observation: 
Agricolis Nouaccolis minus arrident prata gramine hocce referta, dum 
foenu vilioris notae suppeditant, nec pinguescat bos carice pastus acuta. 
I cannot therefore escape the conclusion that the name 
Carex acuta L. must be used for the plant known before 1753 as 
Carex nigra verna vulgaris. This latter plant has universally 
been treated by authors as undoubtedly the same as the more 
recent Carex Goodenowii J. Gay, a conclusion which I see no 
reason to doubt (see Fries, Nov. Mant. 3: 153; Holm, Am. Jour. 
Sci. IV. 17: 306; Kiikenthal, Pflanzenreich 4”: 313). 
