« AnteriorContinuar »
mistake he had made in figuring as C. gracilis, something different from the Ehrhartian plant;) and, following the cue which had been given him by Swartz, Willdenow, and Thunberg, erroneously referred them both to C. loliacea, Linn. Under that species, consequently, these two synonyms have been generally cited ever since, notwithstanding the discrepancy in the position of the staminate flowers, which in C. gracilis, Ehrh., (C. tenella, Schk.,) are correctly described by Schkuhr as at the apex; while those of C. loliacea are rightly characterized by Wahlenberg and Willdenow, and indeed by all succeeding writers, as occupying the base of the spikelets: and the difference in the perigynia, &c. of the two species is not less decisive. Yet even Wahlenberg has unguardedly adduced the synonym in his Flora Lapponica; where he has given a further and most excellent account of the genuine C. loliacea, particularly contrasting it with his own C. tenuiflora, which is indeed the nearest related species. He notices the “squamæ albicantes, omnium tenuissime," and well describes the perigynia as follows: “Capsulæ in singula spicula 3 vel 4, ita obtusæ ut apice fere rotundatæ, utrinque convexiusculæ nervosæ, ob formam suam seminibus Lolii temulenti haud dissimiles, ut nomen omnino bonum.'
While the C. loliacea, Linn., is, so far as I am aware, restricted to the north of Europe, the C. gracilis, Ehrh. has apparently a wider
range and is much more abundant in the new world than in the old. It is the well-known C. disperma, of Dewey; who, while he noted its resemblance to C. loliacea, Schk., (tenella, Schk.,) conceived it to be distinct by its terminal staminate flowers—a point in which it does indeed differ from the true C. loliacea, but not from the plant which Schkuhr mistook for it.
The two plants are so distinct in appearance and character, that the wonder is they should have been so long confounded. But I know of only two botanists who have distinguished them, namely, Nylander and Mr. Tuckerman. As to the former, my information is indirect. Ruprecht, in his recent critical enumeration of the plants which grow around St. Petersburg, has rer tenella, Schkuhr, et Fl. Petropol. Bene diversa est a C. loliacea, L., utrasque exposuit cl. Nylander in Spic. Fl. Fenn., ii, No. 92 et 93.”+ I have no acquaintance with the work of Nylander here cited, nor do I know its date; but I possess, through the kindness of Dr. Fischer, specimens ticketed “Carex pulchella, Nylander: ad oppidum Sardavalæ, Finlandiæ,” which exactly accord with the American C. disperma, and, so far as recollection
Wahl. Fl. Lapp., p. 232.-In his Flora Suecica, he further adds, that the u capsules are a line and a half long,” which is fully one-third longer than are those of C. gracilis.
t In Historiam Stirp. Fl. Petropol. Diatribæ, p. 84. 1845.
and memoranda may be trusted, with the “C. gracilis, Ehrh., Upsal,” in Schkuhr's herbarium.
Mr. Tuckerman, in his Enumeratio Caricum, (1843,) p. 19, rightly remarks, that the C. loliacea of Schkuhr is scarcely that of Wahlenberg and Fries; and he inclines to the opinion, that the specimen from which Schkuhr figured his C. tenella, out of Hedwig's herbarium, was received by Hedwig from Muhlenberg, and therefore may directly represent the American plant, This is not unlikely; but Mr. Tuckerman does not appear to have been aware that this species is also a native of the north of Europe, and had been gathered at least as early as the year 1780. He justly remarks, also, that it is scarcely credible that Schkuhr's figures 24 and 104, can belong to the same species. I have already given what I believe to be the explanation of this incongruity.
It would therefore appear that the synonymy of the two species in question should stand as follows:
1. C. LOLIACEA, Linn.; Wahl. ; Fl. Dan., t. 1403; Kunth, (excl. syn. C. tenella and C. gracilis, Schk.,) not of Schk. Car. No. 14, f. 91, nor Suppl. No. 47, p. 18.
2. C. GRACILIS, Ehrh.; not of Schk. Car., f. 24, nor of R. Br. C. tenella, Schk. Car., f. 104. C. loliacea, Schk. Car. Suppl., p. 18; not of Linn., etc. C. disperma, Dewey; not of Kunze, Car., t. 33.*
Art. IV.-Description of Three New Carices, and a New Spe
cies of Rhynchospora ; by John CAREY,
Carex Grayl: spica mascula solitaria pedunculata; spicis fæmineis 2 globosis densi-(25–30-) floris exserte pedunculatis; stigmatibus 3; perigyniis deflexo-patentibus ovatis ventricosis multi-nervosis rostratis ore bifidis squamam ovatam hyalinam mucronatam triplo longioribus.-C. intumescens, var. B. globularis, A. Gray, in Ann. Lyc. Nat. Hist. N. Y., iii, 236.
Hab. Ad ripas Auminum “Mohawk” et “ Wood-creek," Nov. Ebor. occident. detexit cl. A. Gray, M.D.
Culm 3 feet high, robust, triquetrous, smooth and leafy. Leaves taller than the culm, 4-5 lines broad, rough on the margin. Sterile spike 13-2 inches long: fertile spikes globular, occasionally single, but generally 2, quite distinct and separate, 14 inch in diam
* The figure which Prof. Kunze has given as C. disperma, from specimens gathered on the Black Mountain of North Carolina by Rugel, is an entirely different species; namely, the C. rosea, var. radiata, Deioey, (c. neglecta, Tuckerm.,) or very near it-a plant which I have myself gathered on the mountains of Carolina, very far south of the known range of the species for which this excellent Caricologist has unaccountably mistaken it.
eter. Perigynia crowded, deflexed, smooth and shining, 9 lines in length, 25-30 nerved, tapering into a long perfectly glabrous beak. Achenium obtusely triangular, minutely dotted under a lens, crowned with the long continuous style.
Dr. Gray, who first detected this plant on the banks of the Mohawk at Utica, and described it as a variety of C. intumescens, Rudge, remarks, that it “is characterized by its larger and coarser habit, and by its globose, many.flowered pistillate spikes. It flowers a month later than the ordinary form of the species, and when young might readily be mistaken for C. lupulina." To this may be added, that C. intumescens, owing to the scarcely exserted peduncles, has the loose, few- (5-8-) flowered spikes closely approximate, so as to be almost indistinguishable; and the perigynia are erect, much shorter, (6–7 lines long,) slightly serrulate towards the apex of the beak, and only 15-20-nerved. Though closely resembling C. intumescens, these constant characters and a marked difference in aspect, appear to entitle this plant to rank as a species.*
CAREX PLATYPHYLLA: spicis 4; mascula 1 erecta gracili pedunculata ; femineis 3 erectis filiformibus laxe 3-4-floris incluse pedunculatis, suprema masculæ approximata, cæteris remotis folioso-bracteatis; bracteis spicas paulo superantibus; stigmatibus 3; perigyniis triquetris ovalibus striatis brevissime rostellatis squamam ovatam hyalinam acutam vel mucronatam subæquantibus, ore obliquo integro.
Hab. In declivibus umbrosis, Nov. Angl. et Nov. Ebor.
Culms numerous, leafless, 8–12 inches long, slender, somewhat ancipital, smooth, diffusely spreading and prostrate in fruit. Leaves all radical, 1-1 inch in breadth, 4-6 inches long, flat, pale green or whitish, striate throughout with very fine and close nerves, three of them more conspicuous. Fertile spikes generally 3, erect, 4-of an inch in length, with a few distant alternate flowers, subtended by leafy sheathing bracts, which are not much longer than the spikes. Perigynia triquetrous, finely striate, narrowed at the apex, with a minute oblique point: scale of a light chestnut color, with a green keel and scarious margins.
This plant, though not uncommon in shady ravines, has been hitherto confounded either with the large leaved form of C. anceps, Muhl., or with C. retrocurva, Dew., from both of which, however, it is quite distinct. It forms, with C. plantaginea, Lam., and C. Careyana, Dew., a well marked subsection, (Plantaginee,) which may be characterized by the few-flowered, erect fertile spikes, the upper usually close to the barren one, all on
Since the foregoing description was in type, I have seen specimens from Columbus, Obio, collected by Mr. Sullivant.
short peduncles nearly included within the small sheathing bracts, or the lower partly exserted; and by the triquetrous fruit; numerous, leafless, diffuse, and at length prostrate culms; and broad radical leaves. In the varying forms of C. anceps, the perigynium is constantly more obtuse on the angles, and more obovate in outline; and the bracts are always long and leafy, the upper exceeding the culm. In C. digitalis, Willd., and the closely allied C. retrocurva, the leaves and bracts are also long and grassy, commonly exceeding the culms, and the lower spikes are generally on much-exserted, filiform, more or less pendulous peduncles. The perigynium of the present species, the smallest of the group here indicated, closely resembles that of C. digitalis.
CAREX SYCHNOCEPHALA: spicis androgynis inferne masculis crebris arcte capitato-aggregatis folioso-bracteatis; stigmatibus 2 ; perigyniis compressis e basi ovato-lanceolata abrupte contracta subsessili longe sensimque rostratis apice bifidis margine scabris squamam hyalinam lanceolatam abrupte mucronatam paulo longioribus.-C. cyperoides, Dew., in Am. Jour. of Sc. and Arts, iii, 171, non L.
Hab. In Nov. Ebor. Comitat. “Jefferson,” ubi legerunt cl. I. B. Crawe, M.D., et cl. W. A. Wood, M.D.
Culm about a foot high, leafy, smooth ; spikes sessile, densely clustered, forming a compound capitate spike subtended by 3 long unequal foliaceous bracts much exceeding the spike. Perigynium tapering from an abruptly contracted ovate base into a long and slender scabrous bifid beak, a little exceeding the lanceolate abruptly mucronate scale. Achenium ovate, compressed, crowned with the lengthened style.
This plant, which has a great resemblance to C. cyperoides, Linn., differs from that species in the nearly sessile perigynium, which tapers from a much wider and contracted (not attenuated) base into a shorter beak, of which the teeth are also shorter than in the European plant. The perigynia are more crowded on the rachis than in C. cyperoides, the spikes of which, owing to the greater length of the beaks, have a more comose appearance than in our plant. The scale is shorter, abruptly mucronate, and not gradually tapering as in C. cyperoides; and the achenium is ovate, not ovate-oblong, as in that species. I
may here mention that, amongst the undetermined species of Carex in the rich herbarium of my friend, Prof. Gray, I find C. vulpina, L., collected at, or near Columbus, Ohio, by Mr. Sullivant, and also a single specimen from Illinois, communicated by Dr. Engelmann of St. Louis. They correspond perfectly with the European plant, and the species may possibly be common in the Western States, where it may have been hitherto confounded with the nearly allied, though very distinct, C. sti
RHYNCHOSPORA KNIESKERNII: culmo trigono gracili; spicis numerosis in glomerulis 4–6 distantibus aggregatis ; nuce lævi obovata substipitata setas 6 retrorsum hispidas æquante tuberculo triangulari subduplo longiore.
Hab. In pinetis Nov-Cæsar., detexit cl. P. D. Knieskern, M.D.
Culm 12-18 inches high, branching from the base, slender, nearly smooth: leaves short and narrow. Spikes small, setaceously bracteate, forming small distant clusters throughout the entire length of the culm, each subtended by a long foliaceous bract. Nut obovate, lenticular, attenuate at the base. Tubercle compressed, broad at the base, about half the length of the nut.
In its characters this species is closely allied to R. capillacea, Torr., from which, however, it is readily distinguished by the shorter and more numerous aggregated spikes, and the much smaller nut and short bristles. In general appearance it more nearly approaches to R. gracilenta, Gray, but the nut is quite different, and the bristles are not antrorsely hispid as in that species. I learn from Dr. Knieskern, that it grows exclusively on banks of iron ore in the Pine barrens of New Jersey. He distributed it, as new, under the name of R. Grayana, which name being preoccupied by Kunth for the R. Elliottii, Gr. Mon. Rhynch., I dedicate it to the discoverer.
Art. V.- Observations on the Whirlpool, and on the Rapids,
below the Falls of Niagara; designed by illustrations to account for the origin of both; by R. BAKEWELL, New Haven.
On my return to England soon after visiting the Falls of Niagara in the year 1829, I published in Loudon's Magazine a short memoir illustrated by drawings, exhibiting the physical structure of the country along the river Niagara, with special reference to the retrograde movement of the falls; in the course of my remarks I endeavored to prove from the conformation of the strata, and the erosive action of water, that the falls were once at Queenston. During the six days that I remained there, I made several sketches of the falls and the surrounding scenery, little expecting at the time that I should ever see the cataract again. I returned to America to reside in the summer of 1830, and in the autumn of 1846, I spent eight days at Niagara, taking with me the sketches which I had made seventeen years before. After a lapse of so many years, I was sensibly impressed with the change, which had taken place, particularly in the Canada fall. The waters had receded from the American side of the Horse-shoe fall towards the centre; parts of the precipice were bare which in 1827 were entirely hid by the descending flood. The water which then
SECOND SERIES, Vol. IV, No. 10.-July, 1847.