52 H. G. SIMMONS. [sec. arct. exp. fram 



area here in question than P. pulchella while P. nivea seems to be 

 entirely lacking. ,As to its possible occurrence in Spitsbergen, I can only 

 say that I have seen no specimens from that country; it also seems 

 improbable that it could have found its way thither as it is never found 

 elsewhere on the Asiatic-European side of the arctic region. From 

 Greenland I have seen specimens from Cape Mary, Clavering Island 

 (leg. DusEN, cf. synonyms); further, I have myself found it in Foulke 

 Fjord, and it is collected in Wolstenholme Sound by Balle (cf. 

 OsTENFELD, 1. c.) and by Nathorst at Ivsugigsok. From localities 

 further south, I have only seen two specimens, that seem to belong to 

 it. They are in the Copenhagen herbarium, and are both collected at 

 Umanak in Northern Danish Greenland by J. Vahl. One is determined 

 as P. nivea and the other as P. siihquinata, (Lange) Rydb., by Ryd- 

 BERG who has inspected the arctic Potentillae of the Copenhagen col- 

 lection. They are entirely identical (parts of the same plant?) and are 

 the only ones in the great collection from Danish Greenland, whose 

 leaves show a tendency to become pinnate. In other respects, they 

 resemble P. nivea very much, and consequently, P. rubricaulis may 

 easily have been overlooked in the northernmost colonial districts. A 

 strict search for it in those regions must, therefore, be recommended. 

 Together with the two specimens mentioned, there lay a great many of 

 P. nivea with 5-digitate laves, both under that name and under var. 

 altaica and P. siihquinata, (Lange) Rydb. 



In connection with the forms of P. nivea, found in Foulke Fjord, 

 I shall have to come back to them later, but still f think it better to 

 say a little about the names that Rydberg 1. c, has for the different 

 varieties of the multiform P. nivea. Wulff, 1. c„ p. 105, has already 

 pointed out what he looks upon as a fault in Rydberg's monograph, 

 viz., that this author has united the var. siihquinata of Lange with 

 the var. pinnatifida of Lehmann. This however may, perhaps, be ad- 

 mitted, as it is impossible to keep apart all the varieties that Lehmann 

 has distinguished under P. nivea (in Revis. Potent. 12 besides the 

 principal form), and as the variety of Lange must doubtless be the 

 same as Lehmann's var. pentaphylla, that together with var. pinnati- 

 fida is characterised by partly 5-digitate, deeply incised leaflets. Still 

 there is a mistake, for P. altaica, Bunge in Ledbour, F1. Alt, p. 212, 

 is quoted as synonymous to the latter variety. This error is due to 

 Lehmann himself (Pug. IX, p. 68), and has been repeated by later 

 authors. The figure of P. altaica in Ledebour, Ic. pi. Fl. Ross., T. 

 329, does not indeed give much guidance, as little indeed as does the 



