16 C. H. OSTENFELD. M.-N. Kl. 
Mr. O. GELERT has also had this belief —, but I fully agree with 
H. G. Simmons (I. c., p. 82) that this interpretation of Apams’s species is 
not allowable. 
I think therefore that nearly all records of the American authors of 
D. glacialis from Rocky Mountains and adjacent regions must be trans- 
ferred to D. oligosperma Hook. 
If we take DE CaAnDoLLE's description as base for D. glacialis Apams, 
we learn that it belongs to Chrysodraba (not to Aizopsis) i. e. »folia non 
rigida nec carinata«. The description itself is as follows: »scapo nudo 
stellato-pubescente, foliis lineari-lanceolatis, integris, pube stellata hispidis, 
siliculis ovatis glabris, stigmate subsessili. Differt a D. algida foliis angusti- 
oribus, silicula ovata, calyce constanter magisque villoso«. D. algida 
Apams is merely a form of D. alpina L. with ciliate hairs alone (cfr. 
O. GELERT, |. c., p. 300), and DE Canpo.te’s description thus shows 
that D. glacialis is near to D. alpina, from which it differs only in the 
narrower leaves and the denser hairiness. 
This agrees with Hooker’s remarks (I. c.) »closety allied to the two 
preceding species [D. algida and D. alpina]; differing from both in its 
longer, narrower, and more rigid leaves, which are clothed with short, 
and generally dense, stellate pubescence, and furnished, on the under-side 
especially, with a strong and prominent midrib«. As he has included 
forms of D. oligosperma, he has laid too much strength on the shortness 
of the pubescence and on the rigidity. 
After examining some of the specimens of Hooker’s D. glacialıs 
collected during the Franklin Expedition and sent from Hooker himself 
to Hornemann in Copenhagen I find that two specimens corresponding 
to the descriptions and named and & by Hooker belong to what I call 
D. oligosperma Hook., emend., while a specimen named y belongs to 
D. glacialis ADAms. 
I have long been hesitating whether I should place the true D. gla- 
cialis as a variety of D. alpina or retain it as a separate species — for 
the rest, a rather unimportant question, — and I have at last decided to 
follow Simmons and a still earlier list of my own (Medd. Grönl. XXXII, 
1905, p. 67), in spite of the fact that D. glacialis seems to have a rather 
independent distribution. Observations on fresh material are, however, 
necessary before deciding the question. 
D. alpina, var. glacialis (Apams) Dickie differs from the true D. alpina 
in the following: 19 leaves narrower, linear or linear-lanceolate; middle 
vein very prominent, reaching, or nearly so, the obtuse or subactute tip 
of the leaf; 2° the covering of the leaves consists a) of rigid, ciliate, 
