T. Holm — Studies in the Cyperacew. 33 



Art. TV. — Studies in the Cyperacece ; by Theo. Holm. 

 XIII. Carex Willdenowii and its allies. (With three figures 

 in the text.) 



Torrey, in his monograph of North American Cyperacece, 

 was the first author to call attention to the peculiar habit of 

 Carex Willdenowii Schk., which he suggested separating from 

 Carex proper as a distinct genus, and to which the name 

 " Phyllostachys " would be appropriate. The foliaceous bracts 

 and the distinctly articulated base of the style were the char- 

 acters, which Torrey considered as being of sufficient import- 

 ance for the establishment of this new genus. Later authors 

 have all agreed, however, in not adopting this genus, but 

 merely to accept Phyllostachys as a section of Carex, and it 

 seems very natural, since such articulation of the style is also 

 observable in several other species of very remote relationship, 

 besides that the foliaceous bracts are not characteristic of this 

 species alone. A strange coincidence is, that another botanist 

 made a similar suggestion, but many years later, concerning a 

 iJarex, which in many respects is analogous with C. Willdenowii. 

 Duval-Jouve discovered in France, near Montpellier, a species 

 of Carex, which he named C. cedipostyla on account of its 

 articulated style-base, and in which he noticed the rhachis to 

 be winged and the bracts to be foliaceous ; this author sug- 

 gested the establishment of a new section: '" (Edipostyla,^ 

 and he considered C. moesta Kunth and C. phalaroides Kunth 

 as its nearest allies, since, also, these possess a " stylus basi bul- 

 boso-incrassatus." Moreover Duval-Jouve proposed C. phyllo- 

 stachys Mey. as a member of this same section, on account of 

 its small number of female flowers, its foliaceous bracts, its 

 winged rhachis, the shape of its utricle and finally its articu- 

 lated style-basis. But, on the other hand, Duval-Jouve does 

 not seem to have known C. Willdenowii and he evidently did 

 not know of Torrey's monograph, since he makes no allusion 

 to this ; he would, no doubt, have counted C. Willdenowii 

 among his (Edipostylce inasmuch as the utricle of this species 

 differs less from that of his new species than that of C. phala- 

 roides and C. moesta. We may thus consider Phyllostachys 

 and (Edipostyla as analogous forms of our genus Carex, but it 

 will be necessary to remove some of the species, which form- 

 erly have been considered as representatives of these sections. 



In examining the section Phyllostachys as adopted by 

 Carey,* this contains, as understood by him, only C Willde- 

 nowii Schk., C. Steudelii Kth. and C Backii Boott, all of 



* For references consult the bibliography appended to this article. 



Am. Joup. Sci. — Fourth Series, Vol X, No. 55.— July, 1900. 

 3 



