T. Holm — Studies in the Cyperacece. 35 



to discuss the position of the old section Phyllostachys, as 

 defined by Torrey. 



We have seen from the above that the section has been con- 

 sidered as an offshoot of the Montance Fr., which would mean 

 to indicate some relationship between the Sphceridiophorce on 

 the one side and Phyllostachys on the other. We have, also, 

 seen that it has been regarded as a subsection of the Sphwridio- 

 phorce, which would even indicate a still closer relationship to 

 these. The question is now whether our conception of the 

 Sphcericliophorce allows any such combination, if we take this 

 in absolute accordance with Drejer, the author, who established 

 the section. As long as we quote these sections as those of 

 Drejer, and not " ex parte," we are supposed to follow the 

 diagnosis strictly with no modifications whatsoever. 



Let us read what Drejer says about the Sphceridiophorce- on 

 page 9 in his Symbols Caricologicse : " Spica mascula unica. 

 Spicas foemineae una vel plures, rotundatse, sibi et masculae 

 approximate, sessiles. JBractege membranacese nervo dorsali 

 excurrente herbaceo, vel herbacese ad basin membranaceas. 

 Perigynium membranaceum, pube hirsutie vel tomento vesti- 

 tum, caryopsin arete includens, rostro breviore longioreve 

 apice scarioso-hyalino subbilobo. Stigmata terna, caryopsis 

 . trigona. Centrum habet hie grex in C. pilidifera, ericetorum 

 cet., ex quibus character sumendus est. Ortum ducit inter 

 monostachyas, nominatim in C. Wormslcjoldiana Homem" 

 etc. The central species are all of ordinary habit ; none possess 

 foliaceous bracts replacing the sqticcm.ee ; in none of these are 

 there androgynous spikes on long axillary, basal peduncles ; in 

 none of these is the rhachis winged or zigzagged, nor is the 

 male portion of the inflorescence so inconspicuous as in Phyllo- 

 stachys / furthermore the utricle is not extended into a long, 

 straight and rough beak in any of these. It seems difficult to 

 understand, how any author could see such close relationship 

 to exist between these sections, so distinct do they really appear. 

 And even if we, agreeing with Drejer, see no objection for 

 admitting species with almost simple or very little decompound 

 inflorescence among such, which possess a number of separate 

 spikes, androgynous or with separate sexes, we nevertheless 

 cannot detect any connecting forms by which we might unite 

 the Sphceridiophorce or Dactylostachyce with P hyllostachys, 

 inasmuch as we cannot even consider C. Geyeri and C. multi- 

 caulis as members of this section, the P hyllostachys of Torrey. 



It is now interesting to notice, that Drejer did not only 

 decline to accept Phyllostachys as a genus, but that he did not 

 even consider any of its species with enough significance to 

 constitute even a special section of Carex, although he was well 

 acquainted with these, at least with 0. phyllostachys, C. Willde- 



