3<D PATAGONIAN EXPEDITIONS: BOTANY. 



According to O. Kuntze, Rev. IIP, p. 371, Vahl was the first to 

 describe S. humilis, and this statement has induced both Spegazzini and 

 Macloskie to assign to Vahl the origination of this species, but for this 

 there is no reason at all, as Vahl has not described S.humilis. O. Kuntze 

 cites Vahl's Icones tab. 466, but this work of Vahl's only contains a few 

 tables. Neither does the table referred to, with a reproduction of S. 

 humilis, occur in the above work of Vahl's, but is found in Cavanille's 

 "Icones Plantarum," and, accordingly, Cavanille should be quoted as the 

 author of S. humilis. D. 



STIPA LIGULARIS (Gris.) Speg. Macl., p. 173. 



Any Patagonian habitat for this species I am not aware of and, in the 

 literature, can find no statement of its being seen as far south as Rio 

 Colorado. Its range as given by Spegazzini rather tends to confirm than 

 contradict my supposition that it does not reach the limits of North Pata- 

 agonia. It may, therefore, be safer not to count it as belonging to the 

 Patagonian flora just yet. 



Add Macl., p. 173: 



S. MUCRONATA H.B.K. 



Erect, 30 cm., ligules long. Panicle simple, 15 cm., subsecund, verti- 

 cillate. Glumes acuminate, slightly exceeding the pilose palea; awn 

 pilose. Leaves convolute, smooth. 



N. Patagonia, by Lago Nahuel-huapi. Collected by Dr. Buchtien and 

 new for Patagonia. Occurs northwards to Mexico. 



S. SPECIOSA Trin. et Rupr. subsp. CHRYSOPHYLLA (Desv.) 

 Syn. S. chrysophylla Desv. 



Macloskie has placed Stipa chrysophylla Desv. as synonymous with 

 Stipa speciosa - - Macl., p. 175 while Desvaux and Spegazzini take up 

 both as independent species. These species certainly do not exactly 

 coincide, but, on the other hand, are scarcely specifically distinct, as the 

 descriptions of them given by Spegazzini in his explanation of the Stipece 

 Platenses seem to show. It is, in my opinion, more correct to place S. 

 chrysophylla as a subspecies of S. speciosa. 



Hackel has confirmed my opinion and states that the two forms cannot 

 be brought together as identical, the differences in size of the spikelets 

 and the awns as well as of the coloration of the lower part of the sheaths 

 separating them. 



