146 T. Holm — Studies in the Cyperacece. 



may look as if it were entirely wrong ; thus we might infer 

 that the author — he be an Allioni, Linn sens, Willdenow, 

 Robert Brown or anyone whose specimens have fallen into the 

 hands of "type-species botanists" — did not know how to 

 describe a common plant. Thus is the "type" of Robert 

 Brown's Carex affinis said to be Kobresia scirpina L.,* 

 although Robert Brown's diagnosis calls for a Carex, and 

 although he enumerates the Kobresia in the same list identi- 

 fied as a Kobresia. It would hardly be probable to suppose 

 that Robert Brown should have made a Carex out of this 

 genus after he had examined and identified other specimens as 

 a Kobresia / it seems much more reasonable to believe that the 

 plant Professor Bailey saw was either not a Kobresia, or that 

 the specimens were not Robert Brown's type; the latter con- 

 clusion is more natural inasmuch as Robert Brown did not 

 work with types. Another example may be mentioned in 

 regard to suppressing Dewey's Carex petasata : "The original 

 sheet is in Herb. Torrey. It contains 3 plants, C. lagopina, 

 C. f estiva and C Liddoni, to all of which Dewey's descrip- 

 tion will equally apply." And, therefore, C. petasata " can- 

 not be pressed into service " ! This is evidently one of the 

 farthest points to which " type-species botany " has reached, 

 when we consider the fact that the name C. Preslii is pre- 

 ferred for this species, although with the admission that it is a 

 "guess name," and that Dewey sent good examples of his C. 

 petasata authenticated by his hand to Boott, who had them 

 figured, and our friend Mr. C. B. Clarke of Kew has informed 

 us that these specimens were "not mixed." Drejer's Carex 

 hyperborea is, regardless of the diagnosis and opinions expressed 

 by Blytt, Elias Fries and other critical students of the genus, 

 simpl} 7 referred to Carex vulgaris on the grounds that some 

 few mounted specimens were taken to be " the type." These 

 are only a few out of many cases where specimens have been 

 given preference to the diagnosis and the result is, of course, 

 not unexpected. And the difficulty which confronts us when 

 studying certain plants in the earlier herbaria lies in the fact 

 that, as a rule, we know so very little about the real history of 

 these herbaria. One thing, however, should be readily empha- 

 sized from the study of the old literature, that the botanists 

 did not work with types, and it requires, indeed, but very 

 little research to make us feel convinced of that. Moreover, 

 there is no indication whatever to prove that the specimens 

 preserved in these old herbaria are those that served as base 

 for the diagnosis. 



It might be of some interest to the reader when we present 



* For references consult the Bibliography appended to this paper. 



