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



R. ovalis Raf., R. rhomhoidalis Goldie, durchaus nord-amerikanische 

 Arlen". 



As may be seen from this, Freyn keeps as separate species, several 

 forms which are generally put together, and, as will he shown helow, 

 even such as have not been upheld by their authors themselves. R. arc- 

 ticus is said to be an older name for R. dahuricus, Turgz., but in 

 Ledebour, FI. Ross. I, p. 732, the latter name is referred as a synonym 

 to R. pedatifidiis, Sm., with the addition "ex ipso". This is a question 

 I cannot solve, not having seen the specimens of Turczaninow, but 

 it is of less interest here. The Spitsbergen R. *Wilanderi, Nath. is 

 referred to R. arcticns, but the other Spitsbergen form commonly known 

 as R. affinis or R. ardicus is declared to be "der echte R. amoenus 

 Led." and "mit dem R. amoenus Led. vom Originalstandorte an der Kaja 

 bei Jakutsk derart identisch, dass kaum die Individuen von einander unter- 

 schieden werden konnten". In the first place, this is not the original lo- 

 cality of Ledebour's species, as neither in Ic. pi. Fl. Ross, nor in Fl. Alt., 

 are any other localities mentioned than a few in the Altai besides Nertschinsk 

 in Transbaicalia; more northern localities are first added in Fl. Ross. I, 

 p. 37, where Ledebour has himself referred his R. amoenus as a sy- 

 nonym to R. affinis, R. Br. It seems as if more of the many "Original- 

 pflanzen meines Herbars", that Freyn mentions, are of the same doubt- 

 ful value. The real original specimens of Ledebour's species are, 

 consequently, from the Altai, and it may probably be assumed, that 

 specimens in the Copenhagen herbarium, collected in the Altai by 

 BuNGE and labelled "dedit Bunge" or "misit Ledebour", belong to them. 



But these are not entirely similar to the Spitsbergen plant, even if 

 the differences, somewhat smaller flowers and a more prominent hairiness 

 (which is also to be seen in the figure of Ledebour quoted above), may 

 not give it a right to any more prominent place than that of a variety 

 of R. affinis. Freyn also is forced to admit that the hairiness is the 

 only difference. He speaks especially of the hairiness of the fruit [R. 

 arcticus should have glabrous achenes), but it is admitted that the value 

 of this character is not to be over-estimated (1. c, p. 51). This is again 

 maintained (p. 53), where it is said: "R. amoenus Led. . . . ist daher 

 wohl nicht anderes als behaartfriichtiger R. arcticus''. This may be 

 quite right, the more so as the latter species has not quite glabrous 

 fruits either. But when it is declared, that R. arcticus is "sibirisch- 

 dahurisch-spitzbergisch und jedenfalls auch in Novaja Semija zuhause" 

 contrary to the American affinis-group, this is quite absurd, as R, 



