from the shores of Davis’ Straits. 167 
form of definition in regard to it as leading only to error, and, in 
its stead, adopt detailed descriptions drawn from individuals pro- 
duced in distant localities offermg the widest possible range of 
circumstances. The obvious objection to such a practice is the 
room it takes up. In methodical botany, without doubt, brevity 
is a prominent excellence. But here there can hardly be any 
real sacrifice of brevity. For the needless multiplication of spe- 
cies is an unavoidable result of our definitions being not universal 
but local, that is, applicable to some localities only. All who have 
attended to Arctic botany feel in particular the force of the diffi- 
culties referred to. 
Sir Wm. Hooker has well remarked on the extreme difficulty 
which attends the determination of what ought and what ought 
not to be considered as good species among Arctic plants : “ Ve- 
getables,” he says, “of our own more southern latitudes often 
~ assume in those frigid regions an aspect quite different from 
what we are accustomed to see them wear; and which, without 
referrmg to a very extensive series of specimens, might well be 
supposed to afford decided marks of specific distinction*.” And 
Wahlenberg, the well-known author of the ‘ Flora Lapponica,’ 
speaking of the botanist who limits his attention to the charac- 
ters of species as studied in one district, says, “ Fingit sibi cha- 
racteres sic dictos certos, et putat se eorum criteriis dijudicare 
posse diversitatem specificam plantarum totius mundi ;” adding, 
after some further observations, “In hac re alii faciant que me 
facere vetant visa repertaque +.” 
On such views the observations with which I am about to 
trouble the Society are chiefly founded. 
Crucirer#.—Among the plants in this small collection are 
some Crucifere. There are several specimens of Cochlearia and 
a Draba. Most of the specimens of Cochlearia are so imperfect, 
that it would be a waste of time to attempt to determine whether 
they should be referred to the C. officinalis or to the C. anglica, 
the latter of which is said to be the most common of the Arctic 
species. There is however one well-developed specimen in fruit 
which agrees with the C. fenestrata of Mr. Brown, with the ex- 
ception of having long peduncles, particularly in the lower fruit, 
in which respect it answers to the C. lenensis of DeCandolle. It 
seems very certain, as Sir Wm. Hooker has remarked, that the 
fenestra occurs in the fruit-septum of other species of Cochlearia 
besides that which Mr. Brown named fenestrata ; still, if the fe- 
nestra or rima be of rare occurrence in the other species, and if 
the absence of it be the exception in the C. fenestrata, it is a 
* Appendix to Parry’s Second Voyage, p. 382. 
+ Flora Lapponica, Ratio operis, p. 9. 
