from the shores of Davis* Straits. 167 



form of definition in regard to it as leading only to error, and, in 

 its stead, adopt detailed descriptions drawn from individuals pro- 

 duced in distant localities offering the widest possible range of 

 circumstances. The obvious objection to such a practice is the 

 room it takes up. In methodical botany, without doubt, brevity 

 is a prominent excellence. But here there can hardly be any 

 real sacrifice of brevity. For the needless multiplication of spe- 

 cies is an unavoidable result of our definitions being not universal 

 but local, that is, applicable to some localities only. All who have 

 attended to Arctic botany feel in particular the force of the diffi- 

 culties referred to. 



Sir Wm. Hooker has well remarked on the extreme difficulty 

 which attends the determination of what ought and what ought 

 not to be considered as good species among Arctic plants : " Ve- 

 getables,^^ he says, '^of our own more southern latitudes often 

 assume in those frigid regions an aspect quite different from 

 what we are accustomed to see them wear ; and which, without 

 referring to a very extensive series of specimens, might well be 

 supposed to afford decided marks of specific distinction*.^^ And 

 Wahlenberg, the well-known author of the ^ Flora Lapponica,' 

 speaking of the botanist who limits his attention to the charac- 

 ters of species as studied in one district, says, " Fingit sibi cha- 

 racteres sic dictos certos, et putat se eorum criteriis dijudicare 

 posse diversitatem specificam plantarum totius mundi /' adding, 

 after some further observations, " In hac re alii faciant quae me 

 facere vetant visa repertaque f-^' 



On such views the observations with which I am about to 

 trouble the Society are chiefly founded. 



Crucifer^. — Among the plants in this small collection are 

 some CrucifercB. There are several specimens of Cochlearia and 

 a Draba. Most of the specimens of Cochlearia are so imperfect, 

 that it would be a waste of time to attempt to determine whether 

 they should be referred to the C officinalis or to the C. anglica, 

 the latter of which is said to be the most common of the Arctic 

 species. There is however one well-developed specimen in fruit 

 which agrees with the C. fenestrata of Mr. Brown, with the ex- 

 ception of having long peduncles, particularly in the lower fruit, 

 in which respect it answers to the C. lenensis of DeCandolle. It 

 seems very certain, as Sir Wm. Hooker has remarked, that the 

 fenestra occurs in the fruit-septum of other species of Cochlearia 

 besides that which Mr. Brown ndiVL\G,d. fenestrata ; still, if the fe- 

 nestra or rima be of rare occurrence in the other species, and if 

 the absence of it be the exception in the C. fenestrata, it is a 



* Appendix to Parry's Second Voyage, p. 382. 

 f Flora Lapponica, Ratio operis, p. 9. 



