T. Holm — Studies in the Cyjperacece. 149 



certain authors generally agree to consider as being a collec- 

 tion of real " types." It is more than probable that several of 

 the other old herbaria were founded and kept in the same way, 

 but we know so very little about them, and we suggest that 

 the specimens therein preserved should not be given prefer- 

 ence for the diagnosis ; we might cite here the words of the 

 German botanist Koch, that he desired his species identified 

 not by his herbarium, but by his diagnoses. Nevertheless 

 several modern writers believe in "old types" and that "type- 

 species botany sometimes is our surest way of settling a hard 

 point." 



We have, as indicated in the title of this paper, the inten- 

 tion to present some views regarding two Carices of Allioni, 

 which seem, in later years, to have been entirely misunder- 

 stood, and which have now been restored in such a way that 

 their names have been applied to two plants, regardless of the 

 fact that the restoration is inconsistent with the diagnosis and 

 the geographical distribution. Let us begin with Carex fusca 

 All., which is now recognized as identical with C. JBuxbaumii 

 of Wahlenberg. As security for the correctness of this iden- 

 tification the following statement is offered : " Although 

 Allioni places this species in the section characterized by 

 spicis pluribus sexu distinctis mare unica, it has an androgy- 

 nous terminal spike. It is represented by a good specimen." 

 And on the strength of this, we might say very unimportant 

 fact, C Buxbaumii is nowadays called G. fusca All. by a num- 

 ber of writers in this country and abroad. Any botanist who 

 is familiar with the work of Allioni, with geographical distri- 

 bution of plants, and with the literature bearing upon the 

 genus Carex, will realize at once the ambiguity of the above 

 statement. 



Allioni followed the same principle as Linnaeus in describ- 

 ing the. species of Carex; he commenced with those species in 

 which the inflorescence is " spica unica," after which follow 

 those in which there are several androgynous spikes (C tripar- 

 tita, arenaria, etc.), thereafter those with "spicis pluribus 

 sexu distinctis, mare unica," among which we find C. fusca. 

 If the plant which Allioni had in mind had been the real C. 

 Buxbaumii he surely would have placed it among those with 

 one terminal, gynsecandrous spike and several lateral, pistillate 

 ones, but he has no member of this group. His" diagnosis calls 

 for a plant with one single staminate and three pistillate 

 spikes, while the specimen preserved is said to have a gynse- 

 candrous (androgynous) spike. The question is now to decide 

 whether Allioni made a mistake in his diagnosis, that he over- 

 looked the pistillate flowers in the terminal spike, or whether 

 the specimen in his herbarium was not considered in his 



