1963] 



TAXONOMY OF LUZULA SUBGENUS PTERODES 



287 



lb. Luzula acuminata Raf. carolinae (S. Wats.) Fern. 



Luzula acuminata Kaf. var. carolinae (S. Wats.) Fern. Rhodora 46: 5. 1944. 

 Lusula carolinae 8. Wats. Proc. Am. Acad. 14: 302. 1879. 

 Juncoides carolinae (S. Wats.) O. Ktze. Rev. Gen. PI. 2: 724. 1891. 



This variety has a more southern distribution than variety acuminata. It is 

 found on the coastal plains from Maryland to Georgia and west to Alabama 

 (Fig*. 1). It can be distinguished from the more northern entity (acuminata) 

 by the numerous secondary pedicels in the inflorescence. Also, some of the pri- 

 mary pedicels have two or more secondary pedicels radiating from them. 



Type. Gray and Carey; July, 1841; growing on Grandfather Mountain in 

 North Carolina. (GH — holotype.) 



Representative Specimens: UNITED STATES: Alabama: Harper 3703 (GH, US), 3956 

 (US). Georgia: Allard 81 (US), 82 (US); Cronquist 4979 (GH) ; B. Eyles 6863 (GH) ; 

 Harper 2056 (GH, US) ; Hermann 10186 (GH) ; Muenscher # Smith 2954 (GH). South Caro- 

 lina: House 1847 (US); E. J. Palmer 35405 (GH). North Carolina: Correll 5020 (GH) ; 

 Godfrey 3414 (GH), 3814 (GH) ; Godfrey, Campana $ Fox 48070 (GH) ; Godfrey $ Fox 

 50307 (GH) ; Godfrey, Fox $ Woods 49111 (GH) ; Godfrey $ White 7013 (GH, US) ; Gray 

 # Carey (July, 1841) (G— HOLOTYPE) ; House 4130 (US); Hunnewell 10272 (GH), 14188 

 (GH). Tennessee: Hunnewell 15158 (GH) ; Nease 194 (US). Kentucky: Mcinter $ ShacUette 

 615 (US). Ohio: Leonard 551 (US), 552 (US). West Virginia: Dickey 244 (GH) ; Fosh 1034 

 (US). Virginia: Fernald $ Long 6958 (GH), 6959 (GH), 6960 (GH), 6961 (GH), 6962 (GH), 

 7787 (GH), 7788 (GH), 14526 (GH) ; Fernald, Long # Able 14123 (GH) ; Fernald, Long $ 

 Pease 11657 (GH, US), 11658 (GH) ; Grimes 3400 (GH). 



Hybrids. None have been reported, and none were found during this study. 



Luzula acuminata is confined to the eastern United States and Canada where 

 it is of rather sporadic occurrence. This early blooming species is usually re- 

 stricted to moist woodlands but is occasionally found along roadsides and in 

 other open areas. The breeding experiments conducted by Nordenskiold (1957) 

 indicate that L. acuminata is more closely related to L. pilosa and L. plumosa 

 than to any other member of the subgenus. A close morphological similarity 

 also exists between these three taxa. There are, however, a few traits that can 

 be used to separate them. In L. acuminata the capsule tapers gradually to a 

 tip, the perianth segments are usually light colored and soft textured, and the 

 plants are stoloniferous. In contrast, L. pilosa and L. plumosa have a blunt 

 capsule, the perianth segments are usually dark colored and of a hard texture 

 and the plants are usually strongly caespitose. 



There has been a difference of opinion concerning the treatment of the Luzula 

 acuminata complex. Some authors have treated this complex as one species, 

 others as two species and others as varieties of one species. In most instances 

 the two entities are recognized as varieties and both Fernald (1950) and Glea- 

 son (1952), in the two major floras of the northeastern United States, treat 

 the species in this manner. In both cases the two varieties are separated on the 

 basis of the number of secondary pedicels in the inflorescence. In contrast, Her- 

 mann (1946) in a checklist of the plants of the Washington-Baltimore area, and 

 Strausbaugh and Core (1952), in their flora of West Virginia, accept the name 

 L. acuminata but do not list variety carolinae even though it is undoubtedly 

 found in these areas. Jones (1950) in the flora of Illinois refers to this species 

 as L. saltuensis. By using this name, Jones by implication also accepts L. caro- 

 linae as a valid species because the latter is the earlier binomial. It must also 

 be inferred that he considers the name L. acuminata as being invalid since this 

 name was published much earlier than L. saltuensis. Also, Fasset (1957) dis- 



