50 H. G. SIMMONS. [sec. argt. exp. fram 



Potentilla rubricaulis, Lehm. 



p. rubricaulis, Lehmakn, Nov. Stirp. Pug. IX, 1851, et Revis. Potent. ; Rydberg, Mon. 

 Amer. Potent. ; Hooker, F1. Bor. Amer. ; P. aff. (nivea vel) rubricaulis, Osten- 

 FELD, Flow. pi. Cape York; P. nivea var., Nathorst, N. W. Gronl.; P. nivea 

 var. subquinata, Greely, Rep. (?), non Lange; P. pulchella f. elatior, Dusen, 

 Gefiisspfl. Ostgronl. ; P. pulchella, Nathorst, N. W. Gronl. (?); Kruuse, List E. 

 Greenl., ex p.; P. nivea, auct. ?, non Linnaeus. 

 Fig. Lehmann, Revis. Potent., T. 30; Rydberg 1. c, T. 40, fig. 1 — i; Tab. nostra 5. 



During my stay in EUesmereland, I always regarded the species 

 here in question, as P. nivea, L., and that variety of it, which is called 

 siibqiihiata by Lange; and it was after closer examination and com- 

 parison with other specimens, and study of literature, that I came at 

 last to the conclusion that it nmst be referred to the species of Leh- 

 mann, which seems to have been very little noticed by later writers. 

 As shown in the synonymic, some certainly have taken it for a form 

 of P. nivea, and probably that is the case also with many others, 

 although it is impossible, without having the authentic specimens at 

 hand, to say anything certain about it. Thus, I cannot but believe, 

 that it forms part of the variable P. nivea of Hart, Bot. Br. Pol. Exp., 

 probably also of the plant under the same name mentioned by Greely, 

 Rep., although I have seen no P. rubricaulis collected by either of 

 them. The names under which it may perhaps further hide are: P. 

 nivea var. pentaphyUa, Lehm., var. subquinata, Lange, var. altaica, 

 Rydb. (not P. altaica, Bunge), P. quinquefolia, Rydb., always however, 

 confounded with forms of P. nivea. I therefore think it not out of 

 place here also to devote some attention to an exammation of what 

 ought rightly to be meant by those names, notwithstandig the probable 

 non-existence of those plants in EUesmereland. 



At first, however, the description of P. rubricaulis in Lehmann, 

 Revis. Potent,, p. 68, may be quoted. It runs as follows: 



"P. caulibus e basi adscendente erectis, plurifloris, petiohsque pubes- 

 centibus; foliis infimis bijugis, supra glabriusculis subtus niveo-tomen- 

 tosis; foliolis infimis multo minoribus subcuneiformibus profunde tri — 

 quinquefidis, reHquis oblongis pinnatifidis ; segmentis subaequalibus 

 oblongo-lanceolatis acutis integerrimis subfalcatis; floribus paniculatis 

 sepalis acutiusculis, externis oblongo-linearibus; rehquis ovato-lanceo- 

 latis; petalis obtuse emarginatis fere obcordatis calycem paullo super- 

 antibus". Further be adds: "In Habitus gleicht diese Art gar sehr 

 -der P. nivea var, pentaphyUa, bei welcher aber die Blatter niemals 

 gefiedert sind.". 



