T. Holm — Studies in the Cyperacece. 145 



Art. XIV. — Studies in the Cyperacece ; by Theo. Holm. 

 XVIII. On Carexfusca and Carex hipartita All. 



The futile endeavor on the part of certain modern syste- 

 matists to verify plant-species, established by the earlier authors, 

 by means of their herbarium-specimens but regardless of the 

 diagnoses, has resulted in some very strange discoveries, so 

 strange indeed that they are hardly to be believed. And the 

 excuse for not considering the diagnoses is simply the belief 

 that the herbarium-specimens are to be looked upon as " types " 

 of the respective species. Thus one author states that he " has 

 seen the very oldest types, so far as they are known to exist," 

 of the North American Oarices ; if he had said " supposed to 

 be types " he might have come nearer the truth. 



That this kind of work does not fall within the scope of 

 scientific research is certain, and one might think that it should 

 be ignored altogether. But experience has taught us that 

 some of these results .have, nevertheless, been accepted by sev- 

 eral writers abroad and in this country, and we have thought, 

 therefore, to present some samples of what may be called 

 " type-species botany," for which we have selected Allioni's 

 G.fusca and C. hipartita, of which the former name has been 

 accepted in the place of the younger 0. Buxbaumii Wahlbg., 

 while the latter has been applied as the earliest appellation for 

 Willdenow's Kobresia caricina. 



, It would appear at once that the verification of such old 

 species means a good deal more than a hasty examination of 

 the specimens, that no small amount of literary research is 

 involved, a study of the author's method of describing, of cit- 

 ing, the history of the herbarium as it has been left at his 

 death, etc. ; the last question is of no small importance, as we 

 shall demonstrate in the following pages. And if these points 

 were duly considered so much stress would not be laid upon 

 "names" alone, as is the case at present and has been, we 

 regret to say, during the last decennium. " Turn primum 

 homines ipsas res neglexerunt. quum nimio studio nomina 

 qugerere cceperunt," said Galenus. 



Literary research, however, even if it does not reach beyond 

 the history of a plant-name, is of some importance, if properly 

 conducted, but is seldom productive of results commensurate 

 to the time expended. There is another phase of this so called 

 type-species botany which is especially objectionable ; this is 

 the confusing results which ultimately arise as a consequence 

 of taking certain specimens to Be types whether tbey agree 

 with the diagnosis or not. In the latter instance a diagnosis 



