272 Professor Dewei/^s Caricography 



two species, as an essential difference. This renders it 

 probable that Wahl. ranked our C. retrojlexa, and C. scir- 

 poides, Schk. also under C. stellulata. 



5. C. Platas,inea. Lam. 



Mx. Pursh, Eaton, Pers. and Rees' Cyc. 



Schk. tab. U fig. 70 and Kkkk. fig. 195. 



C. latifolia, Gaert. Wahl. no. 94, and Rees^ Cyc. 

 This is among the plants that appear here earHest in the 

 spring. It is readily known by its broad nerved radical 

 leaves — its leafless brown culm— its pistillate spikes^ 

 whose peduncles are nearly enclosed in long brownish 

 sheaths, rarely terminating in a short leafet, and its long 

 cuneiform three-sided fruit, re-curred at the apex. The 

 leaves are often nearly an inch wide, and distinctly mark- 

 ed by three or many ribs or nerves like Plantago major. 



Muhlenberg seems not to have been acquainted with 

 this beautiful Carex. For, in the description of C. planta- 

 ginea, in the Des. Ub. Gram. Muhlenberg refers to the fig. 

 of C. anceps in Schk. as the plant he describes, and also 

 says, C anceps Schkuhrl He also calls the plant he de- 

 scribes, C. helerosperma^ Wahl. which is most certainly C. 

 anceps, the figure of which is accurately drawn by Schk. 

 It is most singular that Muh. should not have seen the true 

 C plantaginea, Lam.; but the figures of it in Schk. are so 

 distinct and so different from any other that he would have 

 referred to them had the plant ever fallen into his hands. In 

 Rees' Cyc. C latifolia, Wahl. and C plantaginea, Lam. 

 are described as different species, and in the reference of 

 the former to Schk. there is a mistake. The language of 

 Wahl. and Schk. however, asserts the identity of the two 

 plants, as Wahl. refers his C latifolia to Schk. tab. U. fig. 

 ?0. The other part of Schk. Car. which contains the oth- 

 er fig. quoted above, was not published when Wahl. wrote. 



6. C Granularis. Muh. 

 Ph. Muh. Eaton, and Pers. 

 Schk. tab. Vvv. fig. 169. 



This plant is much more perfectly described by Muh. 

 than by the other authors. His description of the fruit, 

 entire at the orifice and re-curved, is more readily appre- 

 hended than that of Willd. given by Ph, obsoletely ernar- 

 ginate, as well as nearer the truth. He has omitted to 



