T. Holm — Studies in the Cyperacece. 57 



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

 XVI. Carices {C. genidnce) physocejjhalm and leiccocephalce. 

 (With figures in the text.) 



The old section PsyllophorcB has generally been abandoned 

 in later years as being too artificial, because it comprises both 

 Yignece and Carices gemoince, and several authors have striven 

 to classify these monostachyous species in sections among 

 higher developed types as ^\formce hehetatm^^ of these. But 

 it is often a most difficult task to undertake such arrangements, 

 inasmuch as there are not a few monostachyous species that 

 seem to stand as isolated types so unlike the others, that in 

 several cases one feels obliged to consider them as species with 

 no immediate afiinity to any section of the higher developed 

 types. — This is, for instance, the case with the remarkable 

 Carex Fraseri Andrews, with C. Breioeri Boott and the puz- 

 zling C physodes Bieb., which considered by themselves 

 exhibit characters that are sufticient to make them represent 

 groups of their own, in other words, "monotypic sections." 

 Nevertheless, the only suggestion that has been made, so far, 

 in regard to the classification of these three species was to refer 

 them all together with a fourth species, C Engelmannii Bailey, 

 to one section : Physocephcdce^ alluding to the inflated utricle. 

 A critical examination of these species has, however, con- 

 vinced us that they do not demonstrate any very close afiinity 

 to each other, hence that they ought to be regarded as consti- 

 tuting several sections instead of one ; moreover C. physodes 

 is truly' a member of the Yignece. Having made a special 

 study of monostachyous species for the purpose of connecting 

 them with the higher types, C Fraseri has actually been one 

 of those whose possible afiinity has aroused our curiosity more 

 than most of the others. So far, we have been unable to trace 

 any afiinity to the other sections, as defined by Drejer,* near 

 enough to unite it with any of these. And a consideration of 

 its supposed allies, enumerated above, has not thrown any light 

 upon the subject, but rather induced us to make a segregation. 

 Let us examine each type of this section ^' Physocephcdce^^ by 

 itself, and first of all C Fraseri. In regard to the peculiari- 

 ties of this species it is not necessary to present any long dis- 

 cussion, since we have already described the species in this 

 Journal, f but we may recall a few of the facts to which we 

 have called attention, viz : The monopodial ramification of 

 the rhizome with its single assimilating leaf; that this leaf has 

 no sheath or ligule differentiated, no midrib and no bulliform 



* Drejer S., Symbolte Caricologicae. Opus postbiimum ab academia scieut. 

 Danica editnm, 1844, p. 9. 

 t Vol. iii, 1897, p. 121. 



