44 C. H. OSTENFELD. M.-N. KI. 
Ranunculus L. 
40. Ranunculus nivalis L., Sp. pl., 1753, p- 553. 
King Point. In flower on July roth, 1906. 
41. Ranunculus gelidus KARELIN & KiRILOW, in Bull. Soc. Nat. Moscou, 
XV, 1842, p. 133; LEDEBOUR, Fl. Ross. I, 1842, p. 733 (non À. gelidus 
SCHUR = À. montanus WiLLp.; nec R. gelidus HOFFMANSEGG (1830—32) 
= À. glacialis L. vel R. alpestris X glacialis); R. pedatifidus HOOKEr, 
Fl. Bor. Am., I, 1833, p. 18, tab. VIII B (non R. pedatifidus SMITH in 
REES, Cyclop. 29, nec. auctt. rec. Amer.); R. Hookeri REGEL, in Bull. 
Soc. Nat. Moscou, XXXIV, 1861, pars 2, p. 47 (non À. Hookeri 
SCHLECHTENDAL, in Linnæa, 1834 = ? À. repens). (See pl. Ill, fig. 15.) 
King Point. A single large tuft in bloom, June 16th, 1906, has 
been collected. 
The expedition has brought home flowering specimens (without fruit!) 
of a plant which quite agrees with the plant named R. pedatifidus by 
Hooker. Both the description, the drawing and a small specimen in the 
Copenhagen herbarium sent by Hooker himself show that our plant un- 
doubtedly is what Hooker called À. pedatifidus. As shown by different 
authors (e. g. H. G. Simmons, 1906) Hooker’s plant is not the true 
R. pedatifidus of SmirH which is very near to À. affinis, while Hooker 
(l. c. p. 18) says about his plant that it »is allied on the one hand to 
R. nivalis, Eschscholtzii etc. but differing in the constantly pedatifid 
leaves; and, on the other hand, I possess some single-flowered specimens 
of À. affinis, which show a great affinity with ite. 
E. REGEL (1. c.) who takes R. pedatifidus as a form of R. affinis, says 
that HooKEr’s species is »eine andere gut unterschiedene Art«, which he 
names Å. Hooker. 
We learn in the description by SCHLECHTENDAL (Animadv. bot. in 
Ranunc., sect. post., 1820, p. 18) of »R. pedatifidus D. C.« the origin of 
the wrong identification by HOokER, as SCHLECHTENDAL'S description of 
his R. pedatifidus is based upon specimens from St. Lawrence Bay col- 
lected by A. DE CHAMISS0, which specimens have nothing to do with 
SMITH’S À. pedatifidus (but probably belong to À. Hookeri REGEL). SCHLECH- 
TENDAL also states that his plant is »affinis R. nivali«. 
It is thus seen the plant must bear the name R. Hookeri REGEL; but 
I think it is the same species which has earlier been described as R. gelidus 
by KareLIn & KırıLow from Alatau Mountains in Central Asia. Their 
description runs as follows (1. c. pp. 133—134): »R. (Hecatonia $ 4. D.C. 
prodr.). Caule humili 1—3-floro, foliis glabris, radicalibus ternatim sectis, 
