142 J. R. Drummond — On a new Scirpus from Belttchistan, ^c. [No. 4, 



put the American species on one side we have left the following, 

 viz : — 



S. plumosuSf — R. Brown 



8, Meyeniij — Nees. 



S. suhulatusy — Vahl 



S. Utoralts, — Schrad. 



8. Meyenii differs from the other plumosas by the trifid sfcyle, and 

 the same applies to the true 8. subulatus of Vahl, so that of " Malaco- 

 chaete " with a bifid stigma there remain but two out of the above, 



viz : — 



8. plumosuSy—1^. Br. ; and 

 8. litoralisy — Schrad. 



To these we must add, however, 8. pectinatus Roxb., because Nees 

 (in Linnaea, IX. 2921) has kept Roxburgh's species distinct from 

 Schrader's Utoralis. 



[Note. — In the Prod. Fl. Nov. Hollandiae 8. plumosus is contrasted 

 with the " Oaribean " 8, validus of Vahl's Enumeratio, but 8. subulatus 

 is not mentioned,] 



Miquel's Flora of the Dutch Indies (1855) contains only one Scir- 

 pus of the " Malacochsete " type, which is given as 8cirpus subulatus 

 Vahl, Roxburgh's 8cirpus pectinatus being cited as a synonym, also 

 Nees' Malacochsete. 



Nothing is said about /S. Utoralis ov plumosus, although Steudel is 

 referred to. " Further India " is given as the Batavo — Indian habitat 

 (apparently) along with the Nicobars (as the external distribution 

 presumably). 



Miquel's description follows Steudel exactly although not verbatim ; 

 but Steudel's does not fit with Vahl's whose 8. subulatus had a trifid 

 style, while Steudel's description brings his species near 8, Utoralis by 

 the style being bifid. Steudel does not give the solitary habitat from 

 which Vahl's plant had been gathered when the " Enumeratio " was 

 published, and as he cites Roxburgh, and his description tallies with 

 Roxburgh's sufficiently, the probability is that he had 8. pectinatus in 

 his eye exclusively. 



There are no specimens of Vahl's 8. subulatus in Hb. H. B. 0. nor 

 in fact of any Scirpus of the " Malacochsete " group from the Nicobars 

 or regions adjoining : and it seems likely that none of the subsequent 

 authors who have quoted or described what they understood to be his 

 plant had a specimen from the Nicobars before them. 



