1898-1902. No. 2. J VASCULAR PLANTS OF ELLESMERELAND. 47 



PotentiUci pulchella, R. Br. 



p. pulchella, Rob. Brown, List of pL, 1819, et Clilor. Melv. ; Lehmann, Men. Potent, 

 Siippl. I, et Revis. Potent ; Rydberg, Mon. Anier. Potent. ; Lange, Consp. Fi. 

 Groenl. ; Kruuse, List E. Greenl. ; Nathorst, N. W. GronL ; Simmons, Pre!. 

 Rep. et Bot. Arb.; Hooker, FI. Bor. Amer.; Andersson & Hesselman, Spetsb. 

 karlv. ; P. nivea var. pulchella, Durand, Enum. pi. Smith S. ; P. nivea, Hart, 

 Bot. Br. Pol. Exp., ex p.; P. sericea var. dasypliylla, Trautvetter, Consp. 

 Fl. Nov. SemL ; Kjellman & Lundstrom, Fan. Nov. Semi. ; non Ledebour, Ic. 

 pi. Fl. Ross., Fl. Alt., Fl. Ross.; P. Sotnmerfelti, Lehmann, Nov. Stirp. Pug. 

 IX et Revis. Potent.; Lange, 1. c. ; Rydberg, 1. c. 



Fig. Lehmanx, Mon. Potent., Suppl. I, T. 7, fig. 1; Fl. Dan., T. 2234; Ryd- 

 BERG, 1. c. T. 36, fig. 6. 



The species in question, is first named by Rob. Brown without 

 description, but in Ghlor. Melv. he gives some notes about its charac- 

 ters that are not, however, very satisfying, Perhaps it could be ques- 

 tioned if he has feally had the species in view, which has since been 

 understood by this name, the more so as the figure of Lehmann, 1. c, 

 who has perhaps had an opportunity of seeing the original specimens, 

 is not quite so good as are his figures generally. Lehmann's descrip- 

 tion, however, is rather clear and satisfying. So too, the figure of 

 Rydberg, 1. c, is not of the best. I think it must be taken for granted, 

 that Rob. Brown has really used the name for the species here in 

 question, the more so, as he has in Chlor. Melv. besides it, also P. 

 nivea from the same district; but there are, in the London collections, 

 no original specimens from Ross's first voyage, and the specimens under 

 the name of P. pulchella from Melville Island, that I have seen, are 

 really P. Vahliana, to which, however, the description does not apply. 

 At all events, the name P. pulchella is to be upheld, even if Lehmann 

 is to be quoted as author instead of Rob. Brown. 



P. pulchella is one of the most characteristic and easily distin- 

 guished among the arctic Potentillae, but notwithstanding this, it has 

 not escaped the fate of being confounded with other species : generally, 

 I think, forms having only one pair of leaflets have been the cause of 

 mistakes, as they can bear a certain resemblance to the varieties of P. 

 nivea, that have narrow and deeply incised leaflets, such as are most 

 common, for instance in Greenland (cf. Wulff, Bot. Beob. Spitzb., p. 

 104 — 106). But that it "goes over" into P. nivea in Spitsbergen, as 

 Nathorst (Veg. Spetsb. vestk., p. Ill) says, and Wulff quotes, I 

 cannot find. Among the whole of the great collection of specimens of 

 P. nivea in the Copenhagen herbarium, there is not a single one, that 

 I could think of referring to P. pulchella, as little as there could, on 



