70 CNHJNOSTENPELD. 
M.-N. KI. 
maintain R. Brown’s name as a varietal name of inferior rank in a wider 
sense, corresponding to his description (1. c., p. 21): »Anthodia in capitulum 
terminale subsphæricum ..... dense congesta, lana copiosa semi-invo- 
luta . . .<, but omitting his remarks on the leaves. HOOKER (l. c., p. 334) 
has done almost the same: caule simplicissimo floribus capitatis. The name 
for our form is then Senecio palustris (L.) Hook., f. congestus (R. Br.) Hook. 
116. Senecio frigidus (RICHARDS.) LESSING, Linnæa, VI, 1831, p. 239; 
Hoox., Fl. Bor. Am., I, 1834, p. 334, tab. 112; Cineraria frigida RICHARDSON, 
Franklin 1st Journ., ed. 1, App. 1823, p. 748; C. frigida f. typica KJELL- 
MAN & f. tomentosa KJELLMAN, Vega Exp. vetensk. arb., II, 1883, p. 13 
& 9.120, 
Purren’s list, Garry Isl.; Pelly Isl. 
King Point. In full flower, June 29th— July 4th, 1900. 
Herschell Isl. In full flower, July 13th, 1906. 
I cannot find any distinct limit between the f. typica KJELLM. and the 
f. tomentosa KJELLM.; the latter is characterized according to KJELLMAN 
(I. c., p. 13) by being more robust and by the denser villousness on the 
upper part of the scape and on the involucre; but already RICHARDSON 
tells us: »calyx . . . villosus«. I find an even transition from the more 
tomentose specimens into others which have only very small and few hairs 
on the involucre (especially specimens from Novaya Semlja). Compare 
the many forms enumerated by F. v. HERDER, Plantæ Raddeanæ, Bd. HI, 
2, 1867, p. 125—126; using his manner of suddividing the species all our 
specimens belong to his var. P, robusta. 
117. Senecio integrifolius (L.) CLAIRV., var. Lindstroemir var. nov.; 
? S. integrifolius Hooker, Fl. Bor. Am., I, 1834, p. 335; Cinerarıa inte- 
grifolia Ricuarpsoy, in Franklin, 1st Journ., ed. 1, App., 1823, p. 748; 
KJELLMAN, Vega Exp. vetensk. arb., Il, 1883, p.29; an Murr.? (See pl. III, 
Kimg Point. Flowering in the first days of July 1906 (4th—7th). 
The material at hand is not rich, and as I have only rather few com- 
parative specimens at my disposal I dare not decide the question, if the plant 
from King Point is a new species or more correctly should be taken as 
a variety of S. integrifolius to which it is nearly allied; nor if it has been 
named before. 
As far as I know, J. M. GREENMAN'S monograph of the genus has 
not yet appeared, and from the preliminary report (ENGLER, Botan Jahrb., 
2, 1902), it is not possible to find out if our plant has been named by him, 
Le 3 . 
as he gives no descriptions to his new species. 
