142 Caricography. 



The following species, described in Vol. X. p. 284; is now figured 

 from specimens in the herbarium of Dr. Muhlenberg, and from an- 

 other received from Georgia. 



C.foenea, Muh. 



Tab. S. fig. 60. 

 The description of this species already given, is accurate. In the 

 Muh. herbarium are many specimens labelled under this name with 

 a question. They agree with the description given in Muh. in gen- 

 eral, and they are doubtless, as they differ from the related species, 

 the plantintended by him. Although he says the spikelets are subqua- 

 ternate, most of his specimens have^t;e, many have six, and some nine 

 spikelets ; in this case several are closely aggregated at the summit. 

 The capsules more resemble those of C. ^^rammea, while the spikelets 

 are more like those of C. scoparia ; but they are wholly remote from 

 the chafflike appearance of the former. Between these two, it seems 

 to be an intermediate species. 



Figures of the following species accompany this paper. 



C. decomposita, Muh. : Am. Jour. Sci. Vol. X. p. 276. 

 " Grayana, Dewey. 

 " foenea, Muh. : Am. Jour. Sci. Vol. X. p. 284. 



Among the writers on American Grasses, the late Dr. Muhlenberg 

 of Lancaster, Penn. stands pre-eminent. His work, entitled De- 

 scriptio Uberior Graminum, Sfc., published in 1817, is constantly re- 

 ferred to by succeeding writers on these genera. His Carices have 

 been used as authority in the Caricography in this Journal. It is not 

 surprising that many new species should have been discovered, since 

 the plants of our country have been so fully examined by a multi- 

 tude of botanists in the last fifteen years. As I have been permitted 

 to examine his collection of Carices, in the possession of the Philo- 

 sophical Society in Philadelphia, it will be interesting to those who 

 study this diflicult genus, to know the result of the examination and 

 comparison of the present species with those in that herbarium. It 

 will be seen that many species, not noticed in his Descriptio, are 

 found among those there preserved. Some had probably been re- 

 ceived after his work was written, and were to have been introduced 

 on the revision of the manuscript, others he may not have satisfacto- 

 rily determined. His work, honorable as it is to his name as a bota- 



