1898-1902. No. 2.1 VASCULAR PLANTS OF ELLESMERELAND. 151 



form the original Linnaean one. But Linnaeus himself, two years later 

 in FI. Suec, Ed. 2, p. 17, established two varieties [3 and /, which have, 

 however, got no names. But here, under the main form, is a quotation 

 from his Fl. Lapp., p. 22, which shows Linnaeus to have looked upon 

 the Lapland form as the main species. But that is the plant commonly 

 called E. angiistifolium, and consequently according to priority the 

 name E. polystachium of Linnaeus must be used for that. From the 

 other quotations I have not been able to draw any inference, as the 

 works in question have either not been at my disposal or have yielded 

 no information. 



But under ^ is quoted: Tournefort, Inst, rei herb., p. 664, "Lin- 

 agrostis panicula minora", and in the work of Tournefort again a 

 reference is found to Tabernaemontanus, Ic. plant., p. 230, a figure which 

 doubtless must be referred to E. latifoliuni, Hoppe. By this, I think, 

 it may be inferred that Linnaeus has by his fj meant the last-mentioned 

 species notwithstanding that he has in the same place another quotation: 

 Vaillant, Bot. paris., T. 16, fig. 1, which seems to point in another 

 direction. The fig. 1 of Vaillant, I. c, namely depicts E. angustifolium, 

 the fig. 2 on the contrary, E. latifolmm, and it can only be thought 

 .that Linnaeus has by mistake quoted fig. 1 insteed of fig. 2, the more so, 

 as Vaillant quotes Tournefort's "Linagrostis panicula minore" to fig. 

 2, and "Lin. pan. majore" to fig. 1. 



But even if it is taken for granted that Linnaeus has had in view 

 as a the E. angustifolium of lather authors, and as /i the E. latifolium, 

 we can only say, that the former ought to be called E. polystachium, 

 L., and it seems still doubtful if the original E. angustifolium of Roth, 

 Tent. Fl. Germ., is the same plant. The author gives a description of 

 his species which is on the whole little satisfying, but nevertheless 

 contains something which can hardly have reference to any other plant 

 than that which we usually call E. gracile, Koch, viz.: — "Foliis angusti- 

 oribus, latitudine fere culmi, canal iculato triquetris". A quotation is 

 also met with here from Scheuchzer, Agrostogr., p. 308, "Linagrostis 

 palustris angustifolia, panicula sparsa, pappo rariore", which quotation 

 Linnaeus has under his y, and which doubtless is to be referred to 

 "E. gracile". The name gracile is first used by Koch in Roth, Gatal. 

 Bot., append., and here a description is given, which leaves no doubt 

 about the plant in view, even though some of the quotations which 

 accompany it can hardly be brought into accord with the description. 

 Especially this is the case with Vaillant, 1. c, T. 16, fig. 2, about 

 which Koch says "bona!" notwithstanding that it represents an un- 



