12 C. H. OSTENFELD. M.-N. Kl. 
broad leaves, which are densely placed on the sterile shoots and very 
remote on the erect flowering shoots. I think it is a good species; ‘its 
wide distribution in the arctic countries also speaks for this opinion. Un- 
doubtedly it is derived from C. alpinum, as C. Edmondstonii also is, but 
I think our species is still older than C. Edmondstonii, the range of which 
is much more restricted (Great Britain, Shetland, Færöes, East Iceland, 
Scandinavia and Spitsbergen). 
Taking it as a species, we cannot use MALMGREN’s name, as we have 
the older name C. cespitosum Gite. There is another name which has 
been used for our species, but which cannot be maintained either, namely 
C. serpyllifolium. In De CanpoLLe’s Prodromus I, p. 417 SERINGE records 
as Nr. 25 »C. serpyllifolium, Wird. Enum. suppl. p. 26?, Linx. Enum. 1, 
p. 433*?«, which is placed in the sub-section of Orthodon with »petalis 
calycem ædquantibus vel minoribus« and which consequently is not our 
species; but he quotes »C. serpillifolium Bieb. ex Stev. in litt., 18176. 
What Steven has meant with © serpyllifolium, we learn from LEDEBouR’s 
Flora Rossica I, p. 411, where we find under C. vulgatum, 3, grandi- 
forum, lusus 2, the following citation. »C. serpyllifolium M.a Bieb. ex 
Steven in Dec. Prodr. I, p. 417 sub Nr. 25 (mec Willd.) fide ’speem: 
Steven!« From this it is evident, that FENZL, who worked out the Caryo- 
phyllaceæ in LEDEBoUR's Flora, has seen STEveEN’s specimens and then 
placed the plant in question under his C. vulgatum, which embraces both 
our C. cæspitosum GiLIB. and a great deal of C. alpinum. The diagnosis of 
»Lusus 2< is as follows: cauliculi gracillimi; folia parvula, lanceolata, 
3—6 lin. longa; flores minores [»Lusus ı« has »flores magni« and means 
C. alpinum, subsp. Fischerianum]; inferiorum calycibus 213—22/3 lin. 
(= c. 5,5—6 mm.] longis«; the characters here given coincide very well, 
except the shape of the leaves, with the description given above of our 
form. The identity appears even better from E. REGEL’S treatement of 
the Cerastia in »Plantæ Raddeanæ<, I. II, 1862; he has there a variety 
of €. alpinum, viz.: 0, serpyllifolium M. B., with the following characters: 
cæspitosum, foliis cauliculorum sterilium parvis confertis obverse-ellipticis 
v. elliptico-lanceolatis, cauliculis remote foliatis cyma trichotoma divaricata 
5-pluriflora terminatis. — Laxe hirsutum, apicem versus glanduloso-pubes- 
cens. Cauliculi adscendentes spithamaei et ultra, paucifolii. Petala calycem 
duplo superantia<. Of this variety he has seen specimens from East 
Siberia, Chuckes Land, Kotzeboue Sound and Novaya Zemlia. I think there 
can be no doubt, that REGEL has meant just our species; the description 
fully agrees with ours, on taking into consideration that he has had well 
developed specimens at his disposal. 
