96 H. G. SIMMONS. [SEC. ARCT. EXP. FRAM 



parts, makes this most probable. There are, however, only a few state- 

 ments about it in the papers of the earlier authors. 



Occurrence. S. Ivsugigsok (NATHORST); Inglefield Gulf: Glacier 

 Valley (\VETHERILL): Foulke Fjord (HART, 239, 1490). N. Hannah Is- 

 land (HART). 



Carex scirpoidea, MICHX. 



C. scirpoidea, MICHAUX, Fl. Bor. Amer., 1803; OSTENFELD, Fl. Arct.; 

 LANGE, Consp. Fl. Groenl.; KRUUSE, List E. Greenl. et List Angmags.; 

 WETHERILL. List 1894; HOOKER, Fl. Bor. Amer.; BRITTON & BROWN, 111. 

 Fl. ; KJELLMAX, Fan. Vestesk. land et As. Beringss. Fan.; HARTMAN, 

 Skand. Fl.; C. Wormskjoldiana, HORNEMANN, Fl. Dan., 9, 1818, et Dansk 

 Oec. Plantel. I, Ed. 3. 



Fig. Fl. Dan., T. 1528; OSTENFELD, 1. c., fig. 58. 



I insert this species in the list entirely on the authority of WETH- 

 ERILL, as I have not seen any specimens from North-Western Green- 

 land. As the species is spread generally all over Danish Greenland and 

 also in East Greenland, it seems a priori probable that it should grow 

 also within our area. 



Occurrence. S. Gape York (WETHERILL). 



Distribution: East and West Greenland, Baffin Land, Arctic 

 America. Canada. Mountains of New England, Rocky Mountains down 

 to Utah and California, Alaska, Chukches Land, Northern Norway 

 (Saltdalen). 



Carex dioica, L. 



This species is reported only by BESSELS from Hall Land. 'Now if 

 there was only his own identification of it, I should not in the least 

 hesitate to exclude it from the flora, as it is highly improbable that it 

 would grow so far north as 81 82 N. and be lacking to the south; 

 but we have not got only BE.SSELS' own word for it (Exp. Pol. Amer., 

 p. 297). it is also maintained in his second list (Amer. Nordpol-Exp., 

 p. 304) where the determinations are said to have been verified by ASA 

 GRAY. NATHORST, who in N. W. Gronl. had excluded it as highly doubt- 

 ful, has given it, in Nachtr., a place in the list on the authority of ASA 

 GRAY. Indeed GRAY'S evidence would seem to be satisfactory, but as 

 there is yet another doubtlessly wrong identification in the list (Erio- 

 phorum va.gino.tum), I think one may be allowed still to doubt the 

 existence there of Carex dioica. The material may perhaps have been 



