T, Holm — Studies in the Cyperacece. 205 



Aet. XVII. — Studies in the Cyperacece ; by Theo. Holm. 

 XV. Carices ( Vignece) astrostachyce. (With five figures in 

 the text.) 



In some previously published papers we have directed atten- 

 tion to the classification of the Carices in " Vignece" " Vig- 

 neastra" and " Carices genuince" as the most natural method 

 under which the species may be arranged in sections or 

 "greges," as suggested by Drejer in his Symbolse Caricologicse. 

 However, this author only treated some of " Carices genuince ," 

 although he fully recognized the stability of the " Vignece" 

 while " Vigneastra" did not appear to him as being separable 

 from the paniculate distigmaticce. While maintaining the 

 Vignece, Drejer did not restrict this section to distigmatic 

 species alone, but he considered, also, certain tristigmatic 

 species, for instance C. macrocephala, as belonging to this sec- 

 tion ; he admitted at the same time a number of distigmatic 

 heterostachyous species among the Carices genuince, even if 

 he considered this section as consisting of typically tristigmatic 

 species. The number of stigmata was, thus, of minor import- 

 ance to Drejer in disposing of the species in " greges." We 

 have already touched upon his views concerning the old sec- 

 tion " Psyllophorce" but hitherto we have not had an oppor- 

 tunity to discuss his ideas in regard to the arrangement of all 

 the Psyllophorce under Carices genuince, as "formce hebetates" 

 of these. It is, at least, the only way in which we can under- 

 stand his remark (1. c, p. 8), " Constituunt ergo Psyllophorse 

 et Carices genuinse unam maximeque naturalem sectionem, 

 etc.," inasmuch as Drejer defined the Psyllophorce as rnono- 

 stachyous, and the Vignece as possessing decompound spikes 

 (spica composita prseditas). Moreover, in describing the various 

 forms of perigynium, Drejer points out that, fc ' oranes fere 

 forrnse perigyniorum, exceptis maxime evolutis, quae apud 

 Carices inveniuntur, inter Psyllophoras quoque occurrunt." 

 He compares thus the perigynium of C. polytrichoides with 

 that of C. pallescens, and of C. Davalliana with that of C 

 sempervirens, etc. Whatever his views were in respect to the 

 lesser developed types of Vignece, Drejer does not seem to 

 have considered any of these to be sought among the mono- 

 stachyous species, formerly called "Psyllophorce " But his 

 work was left unfinished, and it is more than probable that he 

 would have altered his views, had he prosecuted his studies 

 further. 



Tuckermann, whose system of Carex was published just one 

 year earlier than Drejer's, adopted Psyllophorce and Vignem 



