T. Holm — Studies in the Cyperacem. 151 



which Allioni described inasmuch as he immediately after C. 

 fusca describes his C. trigona, which has been identified as the 

 well-known C.fulva Good. 



The second example is Carex bipartita All., which is now 

 by the same writer explained as Kobresia caricina Willd. with 

 the interesting statement that the same species is labeled C. 

 bipartita in the herbarium of Balbis, and that its history is 

 clear ! — 



We regret to say that we have not succeeded in determining 

 the identity of this second species of Allioni with absolute cer- 

 tainty, but the result of our study of the literature seems to be 

 more in favor of it being a true Carex than a Kobresia, judg- 

 ing from earlier authors who were familiar with Allioni's her- 

 barium. Let us read these authors and let us never forget that 

 we at present have no knowledge whatever of the real condi- 

 tions of Allioni's herbarium. Allioni described his plant as a 

 species between Carex arenaria and C. paniculata, where he 

 would hardly have placed his C. bipartita if it had been a 

 Kobresia ; his illustration is not good as a figure of " Carex 

 lagopina" but it would be worse, if it were a Kobresia. It 

 was Willdenow, who established the genus Kobresia and in 

 enumerating the species, among which K caricina, he makes 

 no allusion to C. bipartita All. He cites, however, C. lacustris 

 Balbis in litt., and as we are told by Professor Bailey, Balbis' 

 specimens are Kobresia caricina. It is now interesting to 

 read Gay's account of Carex lagopina Wahlbg., since Gay 

 refers as a synonym Allioni's C. bipartita, his determination 

 being based upon Allioni's diagnosis, while he states at the 

 same time that Balbis' specimens in the herbarium of Desfon- 

 taines contain both this and the Kobresia. But Allioni's 

 species was founded upon Bellardi's plants, and these have 

 been verified as C. lagopina Wahlbg. by Parlatore (1. c.) This 

 author, who describes both Kobresia caricina and Carex 

 lagopina, prefers to consider Allioni's plant identical with the 

 latter, on account of the specimens collected by Bellardi. 



That Bertoloni (1. c.) enumerated Balbis' specimens as 

 Kobresia was evidently due to the fact that the specimens 

 were mixed, as stated above, and he evidently received some 

 specimens of Kobresia only. If we now consider these various 

 phases of the question, it seems as if the identification of 

 Bellardi's specimens as Carex lagopina is of greater import- 

 ance than the fact that Balbis collected the same plant, but 

 mixed with Kobresia. The specimens collected by Bellardi, 

 not by Balbis, were those upon which Allioni founded his C. 

 bipartita, now known as Carex lagopina Wahlbg., and this 

 together with the statements from the literature is a point 



