from the shores of Davis' Straits. 169 



half of the septum ; and the replum or frame of the septum must 

 he double, being composed on each side of the middle ribs of two 

 of thesis leaves united ; and further, each lobe of the stigma must 

 be double, as being a prolongation of this double replum. Again, 

 as the middle ribs of the carpellary leaves which make up each 

 double lobe of the stigma are manifestly to the right and left 

 of the portions of these produced into the dissepiment, the place 

 of the dissepiment itself, though not in appearance, is in reality 

 between these united halves of each lobe of the stigma, or the 

 dissepiment in the Crucifercs, according to this view, is not a false 

 but a true dissepiment, as alternating with the divisions of the 

 stigma ; and this must be very apparent if cases occur in which 

 the usual abortions do not take place in the region of the carinse 

 of the valves. 



Our next Cruciferous plant is plainly a Draha. It is not easy 

 to say with certainty to what species this plant should be re- 

 ferred. But for the small number of leaves on the stems, it 

 might pass for a variety of the D. incana. I set it down as the 

 D. hirta ; not the D. hirta of the ' English Botany,^ but the D. 

 hirta, var. «, of Wahlenberg. The number of leaves on the scape 

 is not so constantly two in our specimens as stated in the descrip- 

 tion of that species ; sometimes there is but one ; sometimes even 

 four. The silicles are glabrous, oblique or slightly twisted, the 

 peduncles shorter than the silicles and not absolutely free from 

 pubescence. Some of the root-leaves are slightly toothed, those 

 of the scapes uniformly toothed. DeCandolle remarks on this 

 species, " Planta polymorpha cum sequentibus ssepe confusa et 

 extricatu difficillima.^^ 



CaryophylletE. — Of the Caryophyllece we have the Lychnis 

 alpina, the Cerastium alpinum, and a single specimen of a small 

 plant with the habit of a Stellaria. The plant being far advanced, 

 the form of the petal could not be made out at first, so that it 

 was difficult to say whether it was an Arenaria or a Stellaria. At 

 our last meeting, when the plant was shown, Mr. M'Nab sug- 

 gested its being the Stellaria scapigera. This I believe it to be, 

 and have since found that the petal is cleft to the base as in that 

 species. Though found on our highland mountains, the S. sca- 

 pigera has not appeared, as far as I have observed, in any of the 

 lists of Arctic plants hitherto published. It does not occur in 

 Wahlenberg^s * Flora Lapponica,^ nor even in Hooker's ' Flora 

 Boreali-Americana.' In a small collection of Arctic plants in the 

 Society's museum, a specimen of what appears to be the same 

 plant occurs under the name of Stellaria Edwardsii. To this 

 species, however, our plant has but a distant resemblance. In 

 our plant the feaves are connate, which I do not find to be re- 



