94 H. G. SIMMONS. ISEC. ARCT. EXP. FRAM 



Carex rigida, GOOD. 



C. rigida, GOODENOUGH, Obs. Br. Carex, 1794; OSTENFELD, Fl. 

 Arct. ; LANGE, Consp. Fl. Groenl. ; KRUUSE, List E. Greenl. et List Ang- 

 mags.; NATHORST, N. W. Gronl.; HOOKER, Fl. Bor. Amer: ; KJELLMAN, in 

 Vegaexp. ; HOLM, Nov. Zeml. Veg.; FEILDEN, Fl. Kolguev; ANDERSSON 

 & HESSELMAN, Spetsb. karlv. ; HARTMAN, Skand. Fl. ; C. saxatilis, WAH- 

 LENBERG, Fl. Lapp.; LEDEBOUR, Fl. Ross.; non LINNAEUS, Sp. Plant. 



Fig. Fl. Dan., T. 159, 2479, 2480; ANDERSSON, Gyp. Scand., T. 5, 

 fig. 46; OSTENFELD, 1. c., fig. 52. 



As C. rigida shows a very considerable resemblance to C. aqua- 

 tilis var. stans, which is a very common plant in Ellesmereland, and 

 not at all rare in the northern part of Danish Greenland, I was for a 

 time disposed to look upon all the statements about C. rigida from N. 

 W. Greenland as by right referable to C. aquatilis var. stans. I have, 

 however, found that NATHORST'S specimens from Ivsugigsok cannot be 

 transferred to it, and consequently the other indications may also belong 

 to the species here in question, and must be discussed in detail. 



DURAND, PI. Kan., p. 199, says about C. rigida, "frequent at al- 

 most every station". I think, however, that no heed is to be paid to 

 his statement, as he has reported no other Carex from N. W. Green- 

 land, and as KANE cannot have found this species so commonly distri- 

 buted and have overlooked other common species such for instance as 

 C. misandra. Furthermore, DURAND has not generally shown himself 

 very reliable in his identifications. 



When the statement of the plant as common in our area is put 

 aside, we come to the same author's report of it from Netlik in Enum. 

 PI. Smith S., p. 95. What is meant here I am of course not able to 

 ascertain, not having the specimens at my disposal. 



Further, there is HART'S report of it from Foulke Fjord (Bot. Br. 

 Pol. Exp., p. 39). As far as my notes from my studies in the Lon- 

 don collections afford evidence, there are no specimens from that locality 

 either in the Natural History Museum or at Kew. All HART'S speci- 

 mens from Ellesmereland belong to C. aquatilis var. stans. This indeed 

 might be an inducement to refer the Foulke Fjord plant (if it is collected 

 there at all and only noted) to the same, but that again is unknown in 

 N. W. Grenland. 



Besides NATHORST'S Ivsugigsok plant, which I have examined in the 

 Stockholm Museum, we have WETHERILL'S reports in List 1894 left, which 

 I think we must accept as based on right determination. 



