from the shores of Davis’ Straits. 169 
half of the septum ; and the replum or frame of the septum must 
be double, being composed on each side of the middle ribs of two 
of these leaves united ; and further, each lobe of the stigma must 
be double, as being a prolongation of this double replum. Again, 
as the middle ribs of the carpellary leaves which make up each 
double lobe of the stigma are manifestly to the right and left 
of the portions of these produced into the dissepiment, the place 
of the dissepiment itself, though not in appearance, is in reality 
between these united halves of each lobe of the stigma, or the 
dissepiment in the Cruciferae, according to this view, is not a false 
but a true dissepiment, as alternating with the divisions of the 
stigma; and this must be very apparent if cases occur in which 
the usual abortions do not take place im the region of the carinze 
of the valves. 
Our next Cruciferous plant is plainly a Draba. It is not easy 
to say with certainty to what species this plant should be re- 
ferred. But for the small number of leaves on the stems, it 
might pass for a variety of the D. incana. I set it down as the 
D. hirta; not the D. hirta of the ‘English Botany,’ but the D. 
hirta, var. a, of Wahlenberg. The number of leaves on the scape 
is not so constantly two in our specimens as stated in the descrip- 
tion of that species ; sometimes there is but one ; sometimes even 
four. The silicles are glabrous, oblique or slightly twisted, the 
peduncles shorter than the silicles and not absolutely free from 
pubescence. Some of the root-leaves are slightly toothed, those 
of the scapes uniformly toothed. DeCandolle remarks on this 
species, Planta polymorpha cum sequentibus sepe confusa et 
extricatu difficillima.” 
Caryoruytitex.—Of the Caryophyllee we have the Lychnis 
alpina, the Cerastium alpinum, and a single specimen of a small 
plant with the habit of a Stellaria. The plant being far advanced, 
the form of the petal could not be made out at first, so that it 
was difficult to say whether it was an Arenaria or a Stellaria. At 
our last meeting, when the plant was shown, Mr. M‘Nab sug- 
gested its being the Stellaria seapigera. This I believe it to be, 
and have since found that the petal is cleft to the base as in that 
species. Though found on our highland mountains, the S. sca- 
pigera has not appeared, as far as I have observed, in any of the 
lists of Arctic plants hitherto published. It does not oceur in 
Wahlenberg’s ‘ Flora Lapponica,’ nor even in Hooker’s ‘ Flora 
Boreali-Americana.’ In a small collection of Arctic plants in the 
Society’s museum, a specimen of what appears to be the same 
plant occwrs under the name of Stellaria Edwardsi. To this 
species, however, our plant has but a distant resemblance. In 
our plant the leaves are connate, which I do not find to be re- 
