T. Holm — Studies in the Cyperacece. 159 



Abt. XIII. — Studies in the Cyperacece; by Theo. Holm. 

 XXX. Carices cForastachyce: CryptocarpcB nob. (with 

 14 figures in the text). 



Members of the CryptocarpcB are: C. cryptocarpa 

 C. A. Mey., C. Lyngbyei Hornem., C. capillipes Drej., 

 C. pfionocarpa Franch., C. hcematolepis Drej., and 

 C. cryptochlcena nob. 



Typical C. cryptocarpa is the plant described and 

 figured by C. A. Meyer from the northeastern corner 

 of Asia, south to Japan, and from Alaska south to Wash- 

 ington. Less typical is Drejer's C. filipendula from Ice- 

 land and the west coast of Greenland, even if some of 

 those from Iceland cannot be distinguished from the 

 typical Alaskan. While only the typical plant is men- 

 tioned by Meyer, 1 three varieties are described by 

 Drejer 2 : a variegata elegantior et gracilior, spicis* f emi- 

 neis ovato-oblongis, squamis atrosanguineis perigyniis 

 flavo-viridibus ovato-obovatis, from Iceland; /? littoralis 

 humilior, spicis magis elongatis cylindraceis concloribus 

 (squamis perigyniisque fuscis), from Iceland, and finally 

 y concolor major et robustior, spicis cylindricis concolori- 

 bus, perigyniis ovatis v. obovatis, from Greenland. 



Of these a variegata corresponds well with the type 

 described by Meyer, although the latter is a rather robust 

 plant, as are, however, so many other species from 

 Alaska and vicinity, when compared with their eastern 

 representatives ; not only in the Carices, but also in nu- 

 merous other phamogamous genera. But neither /? lit- 

 toralis nor y concolor have, so far, been recorded from 

 Alaska and vicinity. 



As a perfectly valid, and indeed as an excellent species 

 C. cryptocarpa has been accepted unanimously by all the 

 leading writers on Caricography, with C. filipendula Drej. 

 as a synonym, nevertheless another name has been sub- 

 stituted merging the species with the local, and quite 

 distinct 0. Lyngbyei Hornem. 3 and 4 . However, as will be 

 shown in the subsequent pages, this proposition is unfor- 

 tunate, and in order to demonstrate the validity of both 



1 Mem. Acad. St. Petersbourg, I, p. 226, t. 14, 1831. 



2 Eevisio eritica, 1841, p. 46. 



3 Gr. Kiikenthal: Cyperaceae-Caricoidese, Leipzig, 1909, p. 363. 



4 C. H. Ostenfeld: Flora Arctiea. Copenhagen, 1902, p. 75. See also 

 this Journal (vol. 17, p. 313, April, 1904), where the synonymy of some 

 arctic species has been briefly discussed. 



