1898-1902. No. 2.] VASCULAR PLANTS OF ELLESMERELAND. 103 



probably belongs to it, but I have seen no other american specimen 

 of it. The american authors who use the name, have as it appears, 

 confounded other species with it. In the herbarium of J. E. Smith, 

 which I have also seen in the Linnaean Society, there lies a small 

 fragment of a Ranunculus labelled in Smith's own handwriting: "Ranun- 

 culus affinis, Melville isld. — Hort. Soc. 1824" and also "R. pedatifidus 

 Sm. in Rees' Cycl. n. 72? vide H. L." (herb. Linn.). Now this fragment 

 consists only of a flower, and a bit of the stem with two leaves, but that 

 it does not belong to R. pedatifidus is to be seen by the almost entirely 

 sheathing leaves, with the broad white membraneous margin ot the 

 sheath. The flowers also are much smaller. The ? of Smith doubtless 

 shows, that he has not thought it to be quite identical with his own 

 species. To the Melville Island plant, I shall soon come back, but it 

 must first be seen what Hooker, 1. c. I, p. 18, and T. 8, B, has under- 

 stood by the name R. pedatifidus. At the first glance, the figure 

 shows that here quite another plant is meant, which stands rather far 

 from the whole auricomus-^roup. I have also seen specimens of that 

 plant, determined by Hooker himself, which make it quite apparent, 

 that it is rightly to be placed where Hooker has it, viz., in the neigh- 

 bourhood of R. nivalis. How Hooker, who must have had access to 

 the Linnaean herbarium, could confound this with R. pedatifidus, I am 

 at a loss to understand. It is a Rocky Mountain plant, collected by 

 Drummond between 52° and 55°, and should be sought for again and 

 more closely studied, as it seems not to have been examined by later 

 writers; I have, however, seen too little of it, to be able to give any 

 particulars about it. 



As now the name pedatifidus is out of the question for our plant, 

 it remains to examine whether the name R. affinis or any other of 

 later authors, is the right one for it. In Andersson & Hesselman, 1. c, 

 p. 50—53, Freyn has given an explanation, concerning the Spitsbergen 

 plant, which has usually gone under the name R. affinis or R. arcticus. 

 His exposition is, however, so indistinct, and in some parts even so 

 preposterous, that he only makes the already rather difficult question 

 concerning the synonyms of the auricomus-seciion still more puzzling. 

 In his second group, Freyn enumerates: "R. pedatifidus Sm., R. amoemts 

 Ledeb., R. arcticus Richards. [R. dahuricus Turcz.) und ein Theil 

 der als R. auricomus v. sihiricus Glehn bezeichneten Formen — alle, 

 wie jene der Gruppe des R. auricomus, behaartfriichtig, nur R. arcticus 

 kahlfriichtig". In his third group are to be found: "R. affinis R. Br., 



