mencing therefore with the genera of Harpalides (p. 45), the succession is Agonum, Harpalus, Pangus, Amara, Agonoderus, Anisodactylus, Chlænius, Trechus, Calathus, Anchomenus, Dicalus, Sphæroderus. Then comes the family Carabides with Cychrus, &c.

Many of the genera are not described; when descriptions are given they are, as frequently as possible, taken from Westwood's synopsis above mentioned: this however can be done only with genera found in Britain; for the rest we have sometimes, as in Galerita, a misapplication of a description of an allied genus, or occasionally an original description; as a specimen of the latter, we will take Agonoderus (p. 47). "Head subquadrate, thorax subquadrate, slightly narrowed behind, elongate: the thorax equals in width the base of the elytra.

Page 55, we have 'Dyticus' ranked under Haliplides.

Page 60,Dermestes lardarius' is placed in the family Cucuiides.

Page 61. The generic description of Staphylinus fails in two of the three species placed under it: the one to which it applies, S. cyanipennis, is not a Staphylinus, but a Philonthus.

6

The names of authors are usually omitted, references to their works under synonyms or names are never given. Where the authorities are mentioned, Anchomenus extensicollis (Steph.)' and Necrophorus pygmeus (Rich.), show what reliance may be placed on them.

The genera of Lamellicornes have been arranged on the same principles as the Harpalides already cited. The succession (p. 67) is; GEOTRUPIDE, Geotrupes, Coprobius; SCARABEIDES, Onthophagus, Phanæus, Aphodius, (with a remark on Lethrus cephalotes,) Copris. The parallelism of the results is further illustrated by the description of Coprobius, which being an American genus is not found in Westwood. "Body ovoid; thorax dilated in the middle, scutellum none: abdomen nearly square, clypeus bidenticulated;" this will compare favorably with Agonoderus above.

But it is time to stop. Although we have gone over but a very small portion of the volume, our readers have had enough to enable them to judge of the character of the work. The task of the reviewer is a thankless one; but if it will prevent books of like merit or rather demerit from appearing in future by authority,' it has not been performed in vain. Indignant protests from students of Entomology, should at once dispel the illusion, if such there be, that this volume is an exposition of the present condition of their science in this country. We write in earnest, because we feel that great interests have been sacrificed, American science injured, and a very poor return given for the honest confidence of employers.

J. L. L.

ART. XXVIII-Caricography; by Prof. C. DEWEY.
(Continued from vol. xviii, p. 104, Second Series.)

No. 246. Carex lucorum, Willd., Kunze Suppl., No. 47, fig. 39, non Sart., Car. Am. Sept. Exsicc. no.

Spica staminifera unica; spicis pistilliferis 2-3, subglobosis, sessilibus, bracteatis; fructibus tristigmaticis, ovatis vel subglobosis, subtriquetris, pedicellatis, hirtulis, nervosis, prolongo-rostratis, bidentatis, squama ovata oblonga acuta sublongioribus.

Culm triquetrous, slender, erect and subscabrous on the angles; leaves narrow linear, scabrous on the edge; fertile spikes two or three and sessile, ovate and few-flowered; stigmas three, and very long; fruit oviform, tapering below or stipitate, rostrate above, two-toothed; the beak large and about half the length of the whole fruit, and deep-split; pistillate scale ovate, oblong and acute or ovate-lanceolate, a little shorter than the fruit.

Kunze remarks the resemblance of this species to C. Pennsylvanica, Lam., and to C. marginata, Schk. It has the same reddish scales, but is easily distinguished by the peculiar shape of the fruit and the beak.

As this species is very distinct, and should be recognized by our botanists, I have derived the preceding description from Kunze for their benefit. The plant has probably been confounded with C. emarginata, Schk. Kunze states that it was raised from American seed in the Botanic Garden at Berlin, and afterwards the plant also was received from a collection made by Rugel at Bergen on Broad River, North Carolina, May, 1841.

Though I labelled some specimens, a few years since, by this name, I am not confident of their identity with this species of Willdenow. The fruit of C. nigromaginata, Schw., is too unlike that of this species as given by Kunze.

NOTE.-C. marginata, Muhl. and Schk., has been considered to be C. Pennsylvanica, Lam. The former was described in vol. xi, p. 163, First Series, and the latter referred to it. A more extensive comparison of specimens over our wide country from New England to Kansas Ter., has led me to conclude there are two species under these two names, manifestly distinct. As the one has been described, as above, the other is here given.

No. 247. C. Pennsylvanica, Lam. Encycl.

Spica staminifera unica cum squamis oblongis obtusis; pistilliferis 2-3, ovatis, sessilibus, inferiore bracteata, fructibus tristigmaticis, oblongo-ovalibus vel ovato-oblongis, trinervosis, subtriquetris, brevi-rostratis et bidentatis, tomentosis, squamam ovatam subacutam subæquantibus.

Common over the United States, and the plant usually designated by this name, with which C. marginata, Muhl. and Schk., has been confounded.

C. marginata, named and described by Muhl. in his Gram., and sent by him to Schk., who described and figured it in his Reidg., Part 2, p. 49, fig. 143, is a short plant, 4-8 inches high, (a span high, Muhl.) stocky, with leaves erect and longer than the culm even before the fruit matures; spikes few-fruited and sessile, with fruit distinctly globose and short rostrate and sub-stiped; while C. Pennsylvanica is about twice as tall, 8-15 inches, slender, with short leaves till late in the season; spikes with more fruit, and the fruit oblong or long-oval, plainly triquetrons.

Both appear easily distinguishable from C. varia, and other species of the same family.

No. 248. C. Persoonii, Sieb. Herb., H. Aust., No. 282, secundum Lang in Linnæa, vol. viii, p. 539.

vitilis, Fries, Nov. Mant., iii, p. 137 et Summa Veg. Scand., p. 223.

canescens, L., var. alpicola, Wahl.

canescens, L., var. brunnescens, Koch.

var. sphærostachya, Tuck. Enum. - sphærostachya, Dew., Sill. Journ., vol. xlix, p. 44, Ser. prima.

- gracilis? Schk., Part 1, p. 48.

Spiculis 3-5, ovatis, approximatis in apicem vel infra subremotis, alternis, sessilibus, paucifloris, bracteatis, inferne staminiferis; fructibus distigmaticis, ovatis, submarginatis, substriatis, oblongolanceolatis vel tereto-rostratis, convexo-planis, glabris cum rostro sæpe dorsum fisso, squama ovata hyalina longioribus; culmis subprostratis, vitiliusculis; foliis planis margine scabris.

This more full description of this species than in vol. xlix, p. 44, is here given from a more full examination of the plant with the descriptions of Fries and Lang. The synonyms show the attention to this plant in Europe and in this country. Being unacquainted with the older descriptions of Sieb. and Fries, I had made it a distinct species, as above mentioned.

In his description, Fries states distinctly the difference of C. vitilis and C. Persoonii, and yet in his tabular view, Sum. Veg., p. 72, he denies the true specific difference, and inquires whether they are not the same. But Dr. O. F. Lang, in the Linnæa, edited by D. F. L. von Schlechtendal, Professor and Director of the Botanic Garden at Halle, has proved the identity of these two species. Indeed, the descriptions of Fries and Lang so nearly coincide as to exclude doubt. The chief difference between them is the split on the back of the beak, which in the abundant specimens of our country is a character often, not always, clearly present.

C. Persoonii, Sieb., is the proper name due to the plant.

This species is wholly different from C. disperma, Dew., for which C. vitilis, has been substituted by Dr. Boott. But this has stamens below, and C. disperma above; and the fruit and scale of the latter are very diverse from those of the former. In our country, C. Persoonii, Sieb. the C. vitilis, Fries, can not be confounded with C. disperma, Dew. The above characters show that this substitution can not be sustained. The somewhat vinelike form of C. Persoonii, for which it was called C. vitilis by Fries, is directly opposed to such confounding of names.

It is to be noticed also, that C. disperma is not confounded with C. gracilis, Ehrh. by Dr. Boott, or with the very different C. gracilis, Schk., Part First, p. 48, fig. 24, which is described by Schk. with stamens below, and not above, and which is probably a minor form of C. sphærostachya, the C. Persoonii, Sieb. given above; see the remarks on that species, vol. xlviii, p. 44, in this Journal.

No. 249. C. tenax, Chapman in MS. Boott, Richardsoni Arct. Exped.

C. Chapmani, Sartewellii, Am. Sept. Exsic.

Spica staminifera unica brevi; spicis pistilliferis 2-3, ovatis vel brevi-cylindraceis, densi-fructiferis, inferiore subpedicellata; fructibus tristigmaticis variis infra subteretibus, longo-conicis, vel brevioribus et bidentatis, multinervo-striatis tomentosis, squama ovata acuta duplo longioribus.

Culm a foot high, erect, with leaves short and flat; staminate spike short, with oblong and acutish scales; pistillate spikes usually three, lowest pedunculate, ovate or short, cylindric, close-fruited; stigmas three; fruit some tapering downwards, ventricose in middle, long or short conic and often bidentate, villose, many nerved or striate; pistillate scale ovate, acute or mucronate, half the length of the fruit.

Florida; Dr. Chapman, who long since distinguished it from C. dasycarpa Muhl. and gave it the above name.

From C. dasycarpa, whose fruit is ovate, clearly triquetrous, rather obtuse, scarcely nerved or striate, it is easily separated.

NOTE. The following views of the synonymy of the species. to be mentioned, are presented, in the hope of throwing some light upon a difficulty long felt in our country.

C. loliacea, L. et Wahl.

C. gracilis, Ehrh., Lang in Linnæa, vol. viii, p. 542, No. 56. Sill. Journ., vol. xi, p. 306, Serie prima.

Culmo tenui gracili scabriusculo, foliis planis margine subscabriusculis; spica composita, spiculis 3-4 rotundis paucifloris gynæcandris (infra staminiferis) remotis; fructibus oblongo-ellipticis nervosis obtuse erostratis, ore integerrimo. Lang ut supra.

This description is given from Dr. Lang, a laborious and discriminating Caricographist, because it was made after extensive examinations so late as 1847, and published after his death in the Linnæa by Dr. von Schlechtendal for its singular merits in 1852. On examining recent specimens from Lapland, I find little to change in the description of C. loliacea in vol. xi. The scale of the fruit is not "acute" but subacute, and the fruit is very obtuse. In the words of Dr. Lang, "Fructus ita obtusi ut apice fere rotundati sunt," evidently following Wahlenberg's description as quoted by Prof. Gray in vol. iv, p. 21, of this Journal, 2nd Series. The synonymy of C. gracilis, Ehrh., has been made difficult by the manner in which the synonyms were left by Schk. in the two Parts on Carices. Prof. Gray gave a plausible solution in the reference just made to vol. iv. To learn if any new light had appeared, I wrote to Dr. von Schlechtendal, Professor in the University of Halle, by which Schkuhr's collection of Carices is possessed, for information. This was immediately given, and the letter shows that C. gracilis, Ehrh. is considered to be, and actually is, the true C. loliacea, Lin. After stating that Ehrhart published no characters or descriptions of his XII decades of dried specimens, but merely attached to each plant a schedule or label containing the number, the name and the author, and the locality, he adds the following:

"In the collection of Carices of Schkuhr himself, which our University possesses, under the name of C. gracilis is present a single specimen of that collection of Ehrhart on whose label is read, 78, Carex gracilis, Ehrh., Upsaliæ.'

"Hence there is no doubt, but that Ehrh.'s plant is the same with that of Schk., nor can there be a doubt, that this C. gracilis, Ehrh. (of which I possess two original specimens in my own herbarium, marked with the same Ehrhartian label) is clearly the same with C. loliacea, Lin, as Schk. has himself already said, and all the more recent botanists agree; and indeed as I maintain from comparison of specimens from Sweden, Norway, and Russia with those of Ehrhart."

As C. gracilis, Ehrh. was placed by Schk. with his C. loliacea, it is evident that Schik. considered the plant as the C. loliacea L., and of Wahl., for he uses the description of both on C. loliacea, L., in his Part Second, No. 47, p. 18; and, having done this, the wonder is, that Schk. should also have quoted his C. gracilis, Part First, p. 48 and fig. 24, as a synonym, when the description and figure prove the plant so utterly different from C. loliacea, L., in nearly every particular. By the letter of Dr. Schlechtendal, doubt is removed, and the synonymy made certain.

Still further: C. tenella, Schk., Part First, p. 23, and fig. 104, is also given by Schk., Part Second, p. 19, as a synonym of C. loliacea L. This is another great mistake, but is corrected by the later authors. Thus, C. tenella, Schk. is described by Fries in