478 T. Holm — Studies in the CyperacecB. 



Art. XLV. — Studies in the Oyperaceee / by Theo. Holm. — 

 XXVI. Remarks on the structure and affinities of some of 

 Dewey's Carices. (With 24 figures drawn from nature by 

 the author.) 



Among- the circa eighty Carices, which Dewey described, 

 there are some which have proved very troublesome to caricolo- 

 gists. The diagnoses are not always so complete or exact as 

 they might have been written ; or the material on w T hich certain 

 species were founded was not quite mature, thus the reader 

 does not always receive a very clear impression of the most essen- 

 tial characteristics of some of these species, even if they may 

 be perfectly distinct and valid. In such cases, where we cannot 

 depend entirely upon the diagnosis, the examination of Dewey's 

 own specimens may, sometimes, be helpful. But unfortunately 

 the material left by Dewey is not only small, but it contains, 

 moreover, specimens w T hich are not all in conformity with his 

 diagnosis, and such specimens must consequently not be looked 

 upon as his original, those on which he founded his new 

 species. The best set of Dewey's species is in the herbarium 

 of Kew ; these specimens were named by Dewey himself and 

 presented to Boott. There is, furthermore, some material at 

 present incorporated in the Gray herbarium at Cambridge, 

 which is very valuable so far as we are able to distinguish 

 between those plants that were parts of his original specimens 

 and others, which he simply identified as being identical, but 

 which, sometimes, are very different species. Dewey did not 

 work with types, he worked with species, and naturally 

 expected that his species were to be identified by means of the 

 diagnoses. It would be very unsafe and unjust to give prefer- 

 ence to the specimens in case of determination, instead of to 

 the diagnosis. When Dewey's specimens do not agree with 

 the diagnosis, we may feel sure that they were not correctly 

 named. Much confusion has arisen from the attempt of 

 certain authors to identify species by means of " supposed 

 types," especially when a critical examination of the diagnosis 

 necessarily must convince us that said specimens were not the 

 original, not the one on which the species was established. 

 The interpretation of Allioni's Carex fusca and hipartita is a 

 good example of the result of this kind of verifying old speci- 

 mens,* but several other cases might easily be recorded. f 



*This Journal (4), vol. xvi, p. 145, Feb., 1903. 



f The following note, copied from a letter received from Mr. Clarke, may 

 be of interest to the reader : ' ' Willdenow did not work from types but 

 from small packets (now largely sorted into different species in the Berlin 

 Herb.). You can see this, because Kunth repeatedly cites Willd., folio 2 or 

 folio 3, for species which he sets up as new (or sepaiate). Feb. 24. 1902." 



