456 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. 
and with other authentic European specimens of the group. In reply 
Dr. Greenman writes of this specimen: 
“No. 4. Differs from the original C. sterilis, Willd., in the following 
characters: (#) narrower, more gradually acuminate and longer beaked 
perigynium ; (6) more oblong achene, which is less narrowed at the 
base. To me, however, your No. 4 is a perfect match for Cares stellu- 
lata in herb. Willdenow, and for European C. echinata, Murr. I - 
quite unable to make any distinction between them. The perigynial 
characters are exactly the same.” ; 
Extreme difficulty is experienced, then, in attempting to distinguish 
the American Carex echinata from Old World material. The range of 
the American plant, too, from Labrador to Alaska, and southward in the 
mountains, immediately places the species in the hyperboreal flora ir 
which Professor Bailey, at least by inference, would exclude it. In vieW 
of these two facts there seems, then, as Mr. Holm has already indicated, 
good reason to consider both the American and the European plant C. 
echinata, Murr. 
Carex sterilis, Willd. This plant has already been sufficiently defined 
in the discussion of Willdenow’s original description and of Schkubr s 
figure. The writer has, however, examined with much care camera 
drawings of Willdenow’s material made by Dr. Greenman and pc 
of Schkuhr’s material generously sent by Professor Carl Mez. is . 
Willdenow plant, which alone is of final importance, proves to be ene 
tical with the large species of the Atlantic seaboard recently deset! ‘te 
as C. atlantica. The fragment sent by Professor Mez from the wi 
herbarium is, however, from cultivated material, and is only . pene 
C. echinata with narrow perigynia quite unlike those shown * Schku ‘ 
figure and in the Willdenow plant as further shown by Dr. Greenman 
report of his critical comparisons in the Willdenow herbarium. 
Besides No. 4, the Labrador Carex echinata, two other forms | 
sent to Dr. Greenman for comparison with C. sterilis. No. 138 i 
echinata, var. cephalantha, Bailey, collected by Dr. C. B. rape 
Waterford, Connecticut, May 27, 1896. No. 2 is sie ankle ae 
lantica, Bailey, collected by Dr. G. G. Kennedy at Ponkapog, gute 
Massachusetts, July 12, 1899. Of these two plants Dr. Gree 
writes : 
“No. 1. This differs from C. sterilis, Willd., in the following bese 
ters: (a) longer inflorescence, more remote and slightly longer sp!*° , a 
(2) longer and more prominently beaked perigynium; (¢) achene 
-harrowed at the base. 
were 
