C. Dewey on Caricography. 255 
This description is given from Dr. Lang, a laborious and dis- 
criminating Caricographist, because it was made after extensive 
examinations so late as 1847, and published after his death in the 
Linnea by Dr. von Schlechtendal for its singular merits in 1852. 
On examining recent specimens from Lapland, I find little to 
change in the description of C. loliacea in vol. xi. The scale of 
the fruit is not “ acute” but subacute, and the fruit is very obtuse, 
J In the words of Dr. Lang, “ Fructus ita obtnsi ut apice fere ro- 
for information. ‘This was immediately given, and 
the letter shows that C. gracilis, Ehrh. is considered to be, and 
actually is, the true C. loliacéa, Lin. After stating that Ebrhart 
published no characters or descriptions of his XII decades of dried 
Specimens, but merely attached to each plant a schedule or label 
containing the number, the name and the author, and the locality, © 
he adds the following : 
“In the collection of Carices of Schkuhr himself, which our 
University possesses, under the name of C. gracilis is present a 
Single specimen of that collection of Ehrhart on whose label is 
‘78, Carex gracilis, Ehrh., Upsalie.’ | 
__ “Hence there is no doubt, but that Ehrh.’s plant is the same 
with that of Schk., nor can there be a doubt, that this C. gra- 
cilis, Ehrh. (of which I possess two original specimens in my own 
herbarium, marked with the same Ebrhartian label) is clearly 
€ same with C. loliacea, Lin, as Schk. has himself already said, 
and all the more recent botanists agree ; and indeed as I maintain 
from comparison of specimens from Sweden, Norway, and Russia 
with those of Ehrhart.” : : 
. AS C. gracilis, Ehrh. was placed by Schk. with his C. loliacea, 
it ls evident that Schk. considered the plantas the C. loliacea L., 
and of Wahl., for he uses the description of both on C. doliacea, L., 
in his Part Second, No. 47, p. 18; and, having done this, the 
Wonder is, that Schk. should also have quoted his C. gracilis, 
Part First, p. 48 and fig. 24, as a synonym, when the description 
and figure prove the plant so utterly different from C. lolacea, L., 
mM Nearly every particular. By the letter of Dr. Schlechtendal, 
3 donbt is removed, and the synonymy made certain. 
._, Still farther: C. tenella, Schk., Part First, p. 23, and fig. 104, 
___1also given by Schk., Part Second, p. 19, as a synonym of C. 
loliacea L, This is another great mistake, but is corrected by the 
later authors. Thus, C. tenella, Schk. is described by Fries in 
> 
_ 
