T. Holm — Studies in the Cyperacem. 147 



a brief sketch of certain points relating to the herbaria of 

 Linnaeus and Willdenow so as to demonstrate the fact that it is 

 pure imagination to believe that the specimens preserved are 

 " the types of the species." The Linnaean herbarium has been 

 thoroughly studied and its actual importance been explained by 

 various authors, for instance by Elias Fries and Hartman. We 

 owe to the former an excellent account of the condition of the 

 herbarium, about Linnaeus' method of collecting, citing, etc., 

 and Hartman has given a report in full about the Scandinavian 

 plants that are represented in the herbarium. It is a well 

 known fact that a large number of the specimens collected by 

 Linnaeus do not correspond with the diagnosis, written by him- 

 self, and the reason for this is, thus, explained : Linnseus did 

 not preserve such material as he had already described, and 

 which he described in the field, but he preserved such speci- 

 mens which were either very rare and not readily accessible or 

 such as he thought differed somewhat from those already 

 'described. These he laid into the herbarium with the inten- 

 tion of comparing and studying them later. It is, thus, the 

 fact that almost none of the plants which Linnseus mentions 

 in his narratives of his journeys are preserved from these sta- 

 tions, but that they are represented by specimens from entirely 

 different places or countries, which seems to prove that Lin- 

 naeus' writings were not based upon " herbarium-specimens," 

 but upon studies in the field. Linnaeus' quotations are mostly 

 misunderstood. He explains himself, however, that these do 

 not necessarily need to indicate that the plants are identical, 

 but that the figure — and he refers mostly to figures — does give 

 some idea of the habit and to some extent expressing the gen- 

 eral aspect of the plant. It is, thus, evident that Linnaeus' 

 species must be studied by means of his diagnosis and not from 

 the specimens or quotations, and this is, of course, in many 

 instances quite a difficult task. 



However some, and indeed no small, assistance is rendered 

 by the fact that Linnaeus did not enumerate and describe his 

 species "haphazard," but that he followed certain rules in the 

 disposition of these. One of these principles adopted by 

 Linnaeus is for instance noticeable in the description of the 

 species of Stellaria, where he commences with the one that 

 possesses the broadest leaf and ends with those of which the 

 leaves are the smallest and narrowest : 1. Stellaria nemorum 

 "foliis cordatis," 2. 8. dichotorna "f. ovatis," 3. 8. radians, 

 " f. lanceolatis," 4. S. graminea " f . linearibus " and 5. S. 

 hiflora "f. subulatis." His arrangement of the Carices follows 

 a similar principle, though especially applied to the composi- 

 tion of the inflorescence : Carex dioica " spica simplici, dioica," 

 C. capitata " spica simpl. androgyna," G. oaldensis " spicis 



