— 223 — 
question they are much shorter than the stem, most often recurved, flat 
with scabrous margins and keel, while K. schoenoides has involute (chan- 
nelled-incurved), erect and long leaves. 
Our species is undoubtedly the plant described by Karelin and Kiriloff 
as Elyna stenocarpa; the authors remark that their species is: “ab om- 
nibus Elynis inflorescentia magis composita distinctissima; habitu simil- 
lima Kobresiæ caricinæ, sed spice e spiculis androgynis composite et 
squamæ femineæ solitarie nec bine”. Just the comparison with the aspect 
of Kobresia caricina = K. bipartita is well found. On the other hand 
our plant is the same as has been described by Trautvetter (I. c.) in 
Acta Hort. Petrop. as E. kumilis C. A. Meyer. His description agrees also 
very well with our specimens, and he points out the difference between 
E. humilis and E. schoenoides just with regard to the form and structure 
of the leaves. 
Kobresia persica Kiikenthal et Bornmiiller (in Oester. Botan. Zeitsch., 
1897, p. 133, Pl. II) is very near our species according to both the de- 
scription and the drawing, but the authors state: “spiculis secundariis vel 
unisexualibus vel androgynis (potius 2-floris)”, which not quite agrees with 
our specimens (being all androgynous and the lower spikelets 4-5-flowered), 
but I should think K. persica being a depauperated form of K. stenocarpa. 
N. 627. Pamir, at a rivulet near Kisil-Kul, alt. 4000™. June 29, 1898. 
N. 663. Pamir, near the river Muscol, alt. 4300™. July 2, 1898. 
18. K. Royleana (Nees) Boeck.; O. Fedtschenko, Fl. du Pamir, p. 
428 (exclus. syn. Elyna stenocarpa); Hooker, Fl. Brit. India, p. 698; 
Duthie, Alcock’s plants, No. 89. 
N. 488. Alai Mountains, at the river Taldyk, alt. 2640™. June 
22, 1898. 
N. 757, 759. Pamir, in the dry bed of the river Bos-tjilga, July 
12, 1898. 
N. 702. Pamir, in bogs at the river Murghab, alt. 3800™. July 
8, 1898. 
N. 898. Pamir, in bogs near Jashil-Kul, alt. 3780™. July 25, 1898. 
N. 1219. Pamir, in the Chargush-pass, alt. 4240™, September 
3, 1898. 
IV. Carex L.'). 
19. C. parva Nees; Hooker, Fl. Brit. India, p. 712; O. Fedtschenko, 
Fl. du Pamir, p. 428; C. macrorrhyncha Kar. & Kir.; Ledebour, Fl. Ross. 
p. 266; Meinshausen, |. c. p. 307. 
1) The species have been arranged after Meinshausen’s paper. Although his 
arrangement is not at all a natural one, it seems convenient to follow it. 
