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



point to L. nivalis, to the above-mentioned species. It will, however, 

 be requisite to treat every author separately, beginning with the first 

 report. 



SUTHERLAND, Voyage, enumerates L. hyperborea. As I have not 

 seen any specimen, I think it best to refer it to the species here in 

 question, as NATHORST, N. W. Gronl., has already done. 



DICKIE, Not. fl. pi., in INGLEFIELD, Summer Search, enumerates L. 

 campestris var. congesta. Now first of all, that species is absent from 

 the whole of Greenland, and most probably from the entire arctic region, 

 as is also the variety. There does indeed exist a corresponding variety 

 of L. multiflora, (EHRH.) LEJ., but that also, as well as the main species, 

 is lacking in our area. As the name is generally used for the present 

 species, 1 refer his localities to it. 



DURAND, PI. Kan., has both L. hyperborea and L. arcuata in his 

 list; his descriptions clearly show that he has had the present variety 

 as well as L. nivalis (hyperborea} before him. In HAYES'S collection, 

 he has perhaps had only the former represented. The plant which is 

 here called L. campestris var. congesta, must however, be left out of the 

 list as it is noted for "Tessiussak, Sept. 4", and was perhaps collected 

 in Danish Greenland. 



HART, Bot. Br. Pol. Exp., has "L. campestris (var. congesta)", "L. 

 multiflora j ' and "L. arcuata (L. hyperborea)". I have seen his speci- 

 mens in the London collections and can therefore assert, that the former 

 name signifies the species here in question as I have already stated 

 (1. c., p. 133). The locality Polaris Bay is consequently to be referred to 

 L. arcuata var. confusa, and the border-line of L. multiflora must 

 accordingly be drawn a long way south of 81 40', where LANGE has 

 been induced to draw it, by relying on the statement of HART. Even 

 GELERT (in OSTENFELD, FI. Arct., p. 31) gives it the same range. If his 

 "!" after the indication "West Greenl. 60 81 40'" is to signify that he 

 has seen HART'S specimens, I cannot agree with him in his identifica- 

 tion. The L. arcuata of HART includes also L. nivalis, as I have found 

 in examining his specimens, that is to say it is identical with BROWN'S 

 L. hyperborea. 



NATHORST, 1. c., has L. arcuata var. confusa from Ivsugigsok under 

 the right name, but among his specimens of Luzula some of L. nivalis 

 are also to be found. NATHORST, 1. c., p. 28, speaks of these as similar 

 to L. arctica, but has referred them to the other species on the au- 

 thority of KJELLMAN. In the Stockholm herbarium the name was altered 



