216 Bibliography. 
ten two-toothed or cleft. 5. The floral envelopes, or rather scales, are 
not distinguishable into two well-defined series, (calyx and corolla,) 
and their number is very variable; the innermost series (corolla of 
Klotzsch and Tuckerman) not unfrequently consisting of three scales, 
and the others of 5 to 10 successively imbricated scales. A. Gr. 
3. Enumeratio methodica Caricum quarundam: species recensuit et 
secundum habitum pro viribus disponere tentavit Epvarpus TuckER- | 
man, Jun. LL.B. etc. etc. Schenectadie: 1848. (pp. 21, 8vo.)—This 
pamphlet we believe is not formally published, but was printed for pri- 
vate distribution among the author’s botanical friends. It is the result 
of an attempt—in most respects very successful—to effect a natural 
distribution of the species of the vast and difficult genus Carex. Mr. 
Tuckerman adopts the following primary sections. 
1. PsytuopHorEs, (Loisel.) Spica unica simplicissima androgyna, 
s. dioica. Stigmata 2-3. 
2. VienEx, (Koch.) Spicule plures sessiles androgyne, in spicam 
continuam, s. interruptam, s. paniculatam disposite. Stigmata 2. 
3. VIGNEASTRA, (mihi.) Spicis compositis ramosis ramisque sem- 
per androgynis, apice masculis 2-3-stigmaticis. Wahl. 
4. LEPTANTHERS, (mihi.) Vigneas inter et Carices. Stigmata 2, 
rarissimeé 3. 
5. Lecitimz, (Koch.) Spicis simplicibus sexu distinctis, rarius 
pseudandrogynis. Spica terminalis feré semper mascula, nune plures. 
Wahl., Koch. 
These sections are mostly divided into subsections, and the latter in- 
to minor groups, amounting to fifty-one in number, which (except those 
of the first section) are not furnished with diagnoses,—and really it 
would prove no easy task to characterize them,—but are distinguished 
by the names of their leading species. Many interesting critical re- 
marks are interspersed among, and follow the systematic portion; and 
four new species are indicated, viz. C. alopecoidea, (= C. cephalo- 
phora, var. maxima, Dew.,) C. neglecta, (aff. C. trisperme and C. Dew- 
eyane,) C. Monile, (= C. bullata 6.? Torr. and Gr.) and C. Torreyt, 
(= C. pallescens?) The proposed arrangement of the C. straminea 
group is perhaps the best that can be done with it; except that C. ard- 
da will renew its claim to specific distinction. We cannot distinguish 
C. Meadii, Dew. from C. panicea. In conclusion, we must be allowed 
to express our strong dislike of the attempt to change, in one or two 
cases, long established specific names, because they conflict with the 
Linnean canons and other excellent rules. ‘+ C. scirpina” may be a 
better name than C. scirpoidea, Miche, (although nomina Barbaro-Lat- 
ina are as expressly forbidden by the canon as Barbaro-Greca,) and 
