1898-1902. No. 2.] VASCULAR PLANTS OF ELLESMERELAND. 89 



as it is quoted in Ledebour, F1. Ross. I, p. 754—55 (The "Delectus" of 

 BuNGE I have not seen). 



However the original D. ctUaica was doubtless a small D. hirta, 

 and Ihe name can, under no circumstances be used for the plant which 

 I call D. siibcapitala. Trautvetter may have known the true altaica 

 and may also have found it in Novaja Senilja, but he has probably con- 

 founded the two plants. Fries' D. altaica, as specimens in the Stockholm 

 herbarium show, is, in most cases, my D. subcapitata, but as previously 

 mentioned, he has also included in it the D. Martinsiana, Gay, which 

 is a D. alpina, and probably small forms of B. hirta as he can refer 

 the figure of Ledebour to it. There are also in the Stockholm collec- 

 tion, specimens from Dudinka at the Yenissei River, which are referred 

 by P'ries (with doubt), to D. altaica. They are rather bad, but doubt- 

 less belong to D. hirta and may be called var. altaica as far as I 

 can judge. 



Later Gelert, 1. c, p. 303, has referred D. altaica to D. fladnizensis, 

 but he can hardly have known the true Altai plant. It is, however, 

 rather curious that D. subcapitata, which is, perhaps, the best defined 

 of all arctic Drabae, should have been so treated by Gelert, with his keen 

 eye for specific differences. It may perhaps be accounted for by his 

 never having had any opportunity of studying arctic plants from nature. 



The result of these researches in the synonyms may be summed 

 up as follows: 



D. altaica, (Ledeb.) Bunge is D. hirta var. 



D. micropetala, Hooker is originally D. alpina, even if other 

 forms have been confounded with it by the author himself. 



D. Martinsiana, Gay (nomen solum) is D. alpina. 



D. Martinsiana, Th. Fries contains principally D. subcapitata, but 

 also includes the last-mentioned, and in all probability the first. 



It is, therefore, I think, quite justifiable to give the plant a new 

 name. Against the last-mentioned of the older names, the only one 

 that could perhaps be used, the previously existing confusion with other 

 plants tells. Indeed the description in Till. Spetsb. Fan. FL, p. 131—2, 

 agrees with our plant, except on a few less significant points, which 

 will be mentioned below, and the figures are rather good, except those 

 which represent the plant in its flowering stage, but nevertheless, I think 

 it is best not to adopt theold nomen solum of Gay, which belongs to 

 another plant. 



A description of D. subcapitata from my Ellesmereland specimens 

 runs as follows; 



