348 MACKENZIE: NOTES ON CAREX—XIII 
3. CAREX BIPARTITA ALL. 
The original description of Carex bipartita (All. Fl. Pedem. 2: 
265. 1785) is as follows: 
2301. Carex bipartita tab. 89. fig. 5 
a culmo tereli nudo, spicis binis terminalibus, suprema composita. 
Loc. In alpibus d’Ussey, & in monte Cenisio locis uliginosis reperit 
Cl. Bellardi. 
erennts. 
Descr. Radix fibrosa cespitem praebet, ex quo aliquot culmi prodeunt 
recti, nudi. Culmus foliis duplo altior, vix palmaris, striatis, teres. 
Folia graminea, glabra, parum convoluta, striata, acuta, fere 
pungentia. Spica terminalis etiam uncialis, composita ex spiculis 
sessilibus, alternis congestis, altera spica distincta subjacet simplex 
foliolo insidens. Spicula infima foliolo insidet spadiceo acuto, & ab 
aliis paullisper distat. Raro tertia spicula inferius mascitur. 
ii oe acutae, non aristatae, fuscae, ora per aetatem 
albesce 
9, f. 5, shows two culms on each of which there are two 
Patt ind a spikes. The culms are twice the length of 
e leaves. The leaves are bunched near the base; the blades 
are nearly flat, and the lower ones are much reduced. The 
species is placed by Allioni in the group with “‘spicis pluribus 
androgynis,’’ consisting mostly of various well-known European 
species of Vignea. 
This species was unhappily identified by Bailey (Mem. 
Torrey Club 1: 63. 1889) with Kobresia caricina Willd., on the 
basis of some specimens in Allioni’s herbarium. Following this 
identification the name Kobresia bipartita came into use. Neither 
Allioni’s description nor his plate apply at all to the Kobresia, 
and it is evident that there was some misplacement of specimens. 
Holm has drawn attention to this (Am. Jour. Sci. 15: 145-152. 
1903), and the name has ceased to be used for the Kobresia. 
However, it was years ago pointed out by Gay (Ann. Soc. 
Nat. Bot. II.11:177. 1839) that Allioni’s description and plate 
applied well to Carex lagopina Wahlenb. Further, Bellardi’s 
plant, on which C. bipartita was based, has been verified as 
Carex lagopina by Parlatore (FI. It. 2: 141, 161), and that author 
treated Carex bipartita as the same as Carex lagopina. It would 
seem that the evidence is quite clear, and that we should use 
the oldest name, Carex bipartita, instead of either the later Carex 
Lachenalii Schkuhr or the still later Carex lagopina Wahlenb. 
