T. Holm — Studies in the Cyperacece. 39 



with the JDactylostachyce. The zigzagged rhachis is another 

 character, which has been claimed as important to PhyUostachys 

 Ton*., yet this is, also, noticeable in C. arctata IBoott, in O.phyl- 

 lostachys Mey. and O. mdipostyla Duv.-Jouveand several others. 

 The winged margins of the rhachis is, on the other hand, a rare 

 feature inCarex, and seems only to have been observed in the 

 species of PhyUostachys Torr., in C. mdipostyla and C. phyllo- 

 stachys. Finally to be mentioned is the utricle, which, as already 

 stated by Drejer, is one of the most essential organs for classify- 

 ing the Carices in sections, and he distinguishes between three 

 categories within E near ex : "Prima est, ubi margines tarn 

 arete circa cary opsin concrescunt, ut verum rostrum non 

 formetur; perigynium turn aut apice perforatum est, aut bre- 

 vissime rostellatum ore integerrimo vel subemarginato. (C. 

 polytrichoides, baldensis, pallescens, atrata, vulgaris cett.) 

 Secunda est, ubi rostrum quidem formatur, sed ab inferiore 

 perigynii parte non aut vix distinguitur, estque apice hyalinum, 

 bilobum aut irregulariter bifidum. (C. pilidifera, ericetorwm 

 et aff., frigida et aff. cet.) Tertia denique et perfectissima est, 

 ubi rostrum verum et distinctum, apice distincte bifidum aut 

 bicuspidatum formatur. (0. distans et aff., C. vesicaria et aff. 

 cet.) These sections are again divided into "greges" : Carices 

 melananthce, etc., which are distinguished by the consistency 

 of utriculus, whether membranaceous or spongy, glabrous or 

 hairy, and furthermore by the disposition of the sexes, though 

 of lesser importance. 



If we now apply the classification, based upon the structure 

 of utriculus, it is readily to be seen that PhyUostachys as it 

 stands at present, including Bracteatoz and P/iyllostachyce, is no 

 very natural section : that the Bracteatm are quite distinct 

 from the latter. We have already in the preceding given our 

 views about the position of Professor Bailey's Phyllostachyw as 

 more properly to be arranged parallel with the Dactylostaehyce, 

 while PhyUostachys proper shows certain analogies with 

 Drejer's Hymenochltenw. In any case the distinction that has 

 hitherto been drawn between PhyUostachys and the other sec- 

 tions is by no means tenable, nor have any accordances been 

 proved to exist between these species and Professor Bailey's 

 PhyUostachys : C. Geyeri, etc. Moreover, when Drejer did 

 not exclude the distribution of the sexes as being of some 

 importance to the classification, he, nevertheless, was well 

 aware of the fact that "formw hebetatm^ do exist in most, 

 if not in all, the "greges," which he proposed. These 

 u formoz hebetata}" constitute such species as may naturally 

 be looked upon as old types of the respective sections or 

 •" greges" for instance C. scirpoidea Michx. as being the type 

 of Sphwridiophorce, etc. By combining the morphological 



