20 C. H. OSTENFELD. M.-N. Kl. 
Proc. Amer. Acad. Ar. & Sc., 20, 1885, p. 3; Macoun, Catalogue III, 1886, 
p. 509; O. uralensis, var. pumila, Macoun, Catalogue I, 1883, p. 115, 
ex pte. 
Rae, Wollaston-Victoria Land. 
Large dense tufts with numerous flowers in full bloom have been 
collected on July 7th, 1904 (see Fig. 14). 
A. BUNGE has given an excellent description of this interesting plant, 
pointing out that it is very near to O. nigrescens (PALL.) FISCHER, and 
remote from O. arctica R. Br., as a variety of which it was first taken 
by R. Brown (Chloris Melvill., 1823, p. 20), and named by Hooker B umi- 
flora and 3 minor. In fact it may be right to consider it as a variety of 
O. nigrescens, as Asa Gray has done, but I prefer to follow A. Buner. 
I may note some few distinctive marks (from ©. nigrescens): the covering 
is dense and beautifully silky, the free parts of the stipules are short, 
ovate-triangular, once to twice as long as broad; flowers usually solitary ; 
scapes short, about as long as the leaves; calyx teeth half as long as 
the tube. 
The plant forms large and dense tufts resembling the tufts of Pofen- 
tilla Vahliana and Silene acaulis; it has a strong and long, branched tap- 
root; the densely placed shoots are covered by the stipules and rhachis 
of the old leaves. There is a striking contrast between the white-silky 
hairs of the leaves, the black pubescence of the calyx and the purplish 
blue corollas. 
45. Oxytropis campestris (L.) D. C., var. melanocephala Hooker, Fl. 
Bor. Am. I, 1834, p. 147; O. Maydelliana TRAUTVETTER, in Acta Horti 
Petropol., VI, 1879, p. 16; Kserıman, Vega Exp. Vetensk. Arb., I, 1882, 
p. 523; 0. leucantha A. Gray, Proc. Amer. Acad. Ar. & Sc., 20, 1885, 
p. 5, saltem ex parte; J. Macoux, Catalogue of Canad. PI. III, 1886, 
p. 510; A. Easrwoop, Botan. Gazette, March 1902, p. 206; an A. BUNGE, 
L ©, p.ırı?; non Astragalus leucanthus PALLAS, Spec. Astragalorum, 
1800, p. 59, tab. 47. 
Rak, Wollaston-Victoria Land. 
In full flower in July (7th—3rst) and the beginning of Aug. (5th 1905). 
The plant named as above by Hooker (lc.) is a very remarkable 
form of O. campestris and merits perhaps to be reckoned as a separate 
species, but I am unable to decide the question, as my material has no 
developed fruits, nor have I seen any fruits in older specimens (from 
Hooker) in our herbarium in Copenhagen. 
It differs from O. campestris mainly in the following points (see Fig. 12): 
old stipules »chestnut coloured and conspicuous« (Macoux, 1886, I. c.) — this 
