Florae Malesianae Precursores XLVI. Notes on some S.E. Asian Cyperaceae X

Zollinger, Plantae Javanicae n. 1254, collected ‘in sylvis umbrosis M. Pulusari’, and distributed as Carex indica L., is a mixture of two related but clearly distinct Carices both belonging in Section Indicae. This was already known to Steudel, who worked up Zollinger’s Cyperaceae and described part of the 1254 collection as a new species in his Synopsis (16, p. 207): ‘Carex commixta. Steud. Radice valide fibrosa; culmo triquetro glabro laevi toto fere vaginato et foliato (3-pedali), basi vaginis efoliatis brevibus ovato-lanceolatis et foliiferis vestito; foliis lanceolatis elongatis latis (ultra pedalibus, 4—7”’ latis) striatis pallidis subglaucescentibus margine scaberrimis ; paniculis axillaribus et terminali, omnibus pedunculatis simplicibus; radiis remotis alternis distiche iterum remotiuscule spiculatis; spiculis sessilibus a basi floriferis, subteretibus acutis basi bracteolis 1—2 setaceis munitis ; squamis pallidis oblongis striatulis nervo medio in mucronem extenuato ; fructu lanceolato scabrato squamam aequante. Cum Carici indica commixta in Hrbro Zoll. Mor. nr. 1254. Carici Horsfieldii Boott videtur affinis. Java.’ Before he published this new species, Steudel must have informed Zollinger about it, for in the latter’s Verzeichniss (17, p. 60), issued earlier than Steudel’s Synopsis, H(erbarium normale) 1254 is still mentioned as Carex indica L., but Carex commixta, here published as a nomen nudum, is given a new number: ‘HZ (= Herb, propr. Zoll.) 1502, ex Pr. Bandong.’ The original description of Carex commixta is almost literally and without comment copied in Miquel’s Flora Indiae Batavae (8, p. 349), but the name is not accounted for in Koorders’s Exkursionsflora (5) nor in the emergency edition of Backer’s Flora van Java (1). In Kükenthal’s Carex-monograph (7, p. 273) it is cited in the synonymy of Carex horsfieldii Boott. To Nelmes (10, p. 267) the very immature specimen of Zollinger 1254 in the Zürich Herbarium, which appears to be a form of the polymorphous Carex rafflesiana Boott, seemed to be the plant described as Carex commixta, so that the broad-leaved specimen of this number in the British Museum must have been misidentified by Steudel as Carex indica. Consequently Nelmes referred Carex commixta to the synonymy of C. rafflesiana (10, p. 290), and maintained the name C. blepharolepis Nelmes for the broad-leaved plant. The last name was published in 1946 (9, p. 18 in nota) with the short diagnosis: ‘afinis C. spatiosae Boott, sed squamis femineis brevioribus glabris, utriculis brevioribus, praecipue differt. Type: Van Steenis 5457. Priangan, Java.’ To me, on the contrary, it seemed diat Steudel’s description fits rather the specimen in the British Museum than Carex rafflesiana, which has linear leaves. Broad, lanceolate leaves are but seldom found in Carex, and they are extremely rare in Indocarices. Besides, the said specimen is characterized by its short, ovate-lanceolate cataphylls at the stembase, the pale-glaucescent leaves, the open inflorescence, and the pale glumes, characters mentioned in the description, but not to be found in C. rafflesiana. I supposed that Steudel, after having separated the specimens with broad leaves from those with linear ones, considered the former a new species and took the latter for C. indica (see his description of this species, l.c.). My supposition was confirmed by the three specimens of Zollinger 1254 in the Paris Herbarium. One of them is a narrow-leaved, immature plant labelled in Zollinger’s handwriting: ‘1254. E.B. Im Schatten des Waldes auf dem Pulusari bis oben. Cyperaceae. An = V 43‘. This is indeed Carex rafflesiana Boott. The two broad-leaved specimens belong to what Nelmes described as Carex blepharolepis. One of them was determined by Spach as Carex spatiosa Boott, the other one (fig. 1), originally forming part of Steudel’s private herbarium, bears a label in Steudel’s handwriting: ‘Carex commixta Steud. Carici indica erat adjecta. Carici Horsfieldii Boott videtur maxime affinis. — Ego nec C. indicam nec C. commixtam possideo cum utriusque unicum adsit specimen. St.’ This was probably a personal information to Zollinger, who added the new number of his Verzeichniss (1502 Z) and presented Steudel with the specimen which is undoubtedly the holotype of Carex commixta. An error must have crept into Steudel’s statement that the leaves are 4—7 lines wide, for actually they are about 1½ – 2½ cm (14-7”’?) wide. This error may have led Nelmes to take the narrow-leaved specimens of Zollinger 1254 for Carex commixta. Boeckeler (2, p. 349), like Spach, determined the broad-leaved Zollinger specimen in the Berlin Herbarium (1284 is obviously a printer’s error for 1254) as Carex spatiosa Boott. Steudel’s name was either unknown to him or — what is more likely — deliberately omitted. This determination is perfectly justifiable. Boott’s type specimen of Carex spatiosa, Gaudichaud 67 from Indo-China in the Paris Herbarium, the description (3, p. 86), and the excellent plate 246 accompanying the description, leave no doubt that Carex commixta, if not conspecific with C. spatiosa, is very near to it. The name Carex spatiosa for a Javan Carex turns up again in Clarke’s ‘List of the Carices of Malaya’ (4, p. 12). The record is based on a Kurz specimen in the Kew Herbarium, which is certainly conspecific with Carex commixta. Clarke distinguished it from typical C. spatiosa as ‘var. bogorensis; utriculis ovoideis; rostro cum ½ — 2/3 parte utriculi aequilongo, scabro.’ Remains therefore the question whether the Javan Carex commixta (1855) and the Indo-Chinese C. spatiosa (1860) are specifically distinct. Comparison of Nelmes’s long and very detailed description of C. spatiosa (12, p. III) with that of C. blepharolepis (10, p. 265) results in no other noteworthy differences than the following: in the former the glumes are said to be about 2 mm long, adpressed-hispidulous, ciliolate-erose round the apex, and the utricles 5—6 mm long inclusive of the 2—3 mm long beak; in the latter the glumes are described as being 2—3 mm long (see, however, the original diagnosis!), ciliolate-erose especially at the apex, and the utricles 4—5 mm long inclusive of the 1½ —2 mm long beak. In the Indo-Chinese collections at my disposal I find the utricles on the whole, but not always, slightly longer than in the Malesian plants mainly because of the slenderer beak, and the glumes usually somewhat more hairy. Evaluation of those slight differences is of course subjective; to my mind there is no reason whatever to accept C. C. commixta and C. spatiosa as specifically or even varietally distinct. Recently Raymond (15, p. 255 f. 1) described Carex smitinandii from N. Thailand, ‘close to C. spatiosa Boott and C. balansae Franch. of French Indo-China, both bearing wide leaves and an open panicle.’ In the Leyden isotype ( Smitinand 7046), which is obviously better developed than the holotype, I fail to see noticeable differences with the Malesian specimens of Carex commixta. In the Malesian plants the utricles are 4—5 mm long, in Smitinand 7046 about 4 mm, not 3 mm as was stated in the original description (see, however, his f. 1). I have not seen Carex chuniana Wang & Tang, C. humbertii Wang & Tang, and C. hypolytrifolia Koyama, which are all referred to the synonymy of C. spatiosa Boott by Raymond (14, p. 40). As to C. hypolytrifolia, I doubt whether this reduction is right. From Koyama’s description I might infer that it belongs in Sect. Mapaniifoliae and is either C. helferi Boeck. or a closely allied species. Carex commixta appears to be a rare species of primary—and less frequently secondaryforests, known from Hainan, Burma, N. Thailand, Tonkin, Annam, S. Sumatra, and W. Java. For an enumeration of the collections see Nelmes (10, 11, 12) and Raymond (14, 15)Carex commixta Steud., Syn. 2 (1855) 207. — Type: Java: Zollinger Pl. Jan. 1254 p.p. typ. (= HZ 1502) (P). C. spatiosa Boott, Illustr. 2 (1860) 86, t. 246. — Type: Indo-China: Gaudichaud 67 (P). C. spatiosa Boott var. bogorensis C. B. Clarke, Journ. Linn. Soc., Bot 37 (1904) 12. — Type: Java: Kurz s.n. (K). C. blepharolepis Nelmes, Kew Bull. 1946, p. 18 in nota. — Type: Java: Van Steenis 5457 (BO, K, L). C. smitinandii Raym., Dansk Bot. Arkiv 23 (1965) 255, f. 1. — Type: Thailand: Smitinand 7046 (BKF, n.v.; isotype in L).