T. Holm — Studies in the Cyperacece. 



213 



doubt, a close ally, and C. elongata L. and C. Iceviculmis Meins- 

 haus. show so many points in common with C. echinata, that 

 they may well be arranged in the same section ; to these, we 

 think, may be added C. remota L., but only as a " forma des- 

 ciscens." The central type of the section seems best illustrated 

 by C. echinata Murr., the O. stellulata Good., from which we 

 have derived the name " astrostachyw" as being the most 

 appropriate for this new section, while the other species may 

 be classified as follows : 



Carices ( Vigneoe) astrostachy&e. 



f C. dioeca L. ... 



I C. parallela Lsest. 



hebetatoe ■{ C. gynocrates Worruskj. 



I C. Davalliana Sm. 



^ C. exilis Dew. 



f O. echinata Murr. 



^ , ) C. sterilis Willd. 



centrales -< „ 7 . T 



C. elongata L. 



^ C. Iceviculmis Meinshaus. 

 desciscens. C. remota L. 



Further research will evidently prove that several other 

 species may be referable to this section, but we have not at 

 present been able to find any others in the very considerable 

 material of the genus which we have studied. It is readily 

 noticed from the above, that we have restricted the number of 



Willdenow. 

 C. echinata. 



G. scirpoides. 



Prof. Bailey 



Inflorescence. 

 Spica androgyna 

 composita, spira- 

 lis subquaternis 

 remotiusculis in- 

 ferne masculis. 



Spica andr. comp , 

 spiculis subquat. 

 inferne masculis 

 subapproximatis, 

 ellipticis. 



13 



C. sterilis Willd. 

 incl. C. scirpoides 

 Schk. 



J 



to 5 contiguous 

 spikes of which 

 the uppermost is 

 usually conspicu- 

 ously attenuated 

 at base by the 

 presence of stam- 

 inate flowers. 



Utriculus. 

 ovato-acuminatis 

 . bidentatis hori- 

 zontalibus. 



ovatis bidentatis 

 compressis. 



thin and flat, con- 

 spicuously con- 

 tracted into a 

 slender beak 

 which is nearly 

 or quite as long 

 as the body. 



Squamse. 

 ovatis acutis 



ellipticis obtusis. 



It is readily seen from the above, that Willdeuow had some reason for dis- 

 tinguishing these plants from each other, and that the collective diagnosis, as 

 presented by Prof. Bailey, is too vague to be considered. 



