s 
DR. HOOKER ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF ARCTIC PLANTS- 337 
distinct from it than either arctica or latlfolia. Torrey at first considered it a variety ; 
but both he and Asa Gray have since regarded it as a species. 
Androsace triflora, Adams. This, which is unknown to Ledebour, Duby, and myself, 
appears, from the description, not to differ from Chamcej a sme . A. Chamqji 
more properly a West Arctic American plant, extends eastward to Victoria L 
Ledebour (Flor. Ross, iii.18) gives Kotzebue Sound as a habitat for villosa, quoting 
erroneously, Beechey's ■ Voyage.' I do not think it is anywhere an arctic plant. 
Primula stricta, Horn. I find it difficult to distinguish some arctic forms of i his from 
others of farinosa, but think I have given its distribution correctly. P. Worn e m a/mriana 
is now generally admitted to be a synonym. P. Mislassinica, C.& S. (non Mich.), is referred 
by Ledebour to P. stricta ; and P. Hist ass mica, Mich., was united with the same plant in 
the 'Flora B or eali- Americana,' with probably good reason according to Duby. 
P. borealis, Duby. Ledebour says of this, " planta mire varians." Ruprecht suggests 
that it is only a var. of stricta, and rightly, I have no doubt. 
P. nivalis, Pall. The distribution of this plant is peculiar. It is found nowhere in 
Europe, except the Caucasian provinces be considered such ; it is, however, a native of 
all Siberia and N. W. America. 
P. saxifr ag cefolia , Lehm. Ledebour reduces this to cin/cifolic, and no doubt correctly. 
P. Scotica, Hook. This is a form distinct enough in many places, but graduates into 
P. farinosa, with which Bentham joins it. Fries keeps it distinct, as docs Watson, who 
remarks that its characters depend chiefly on its larger purple corolla. P. fariiiosa itself, 
though a native of Finland, scarcely extends into Lapland. 
P. Finmarchica, Willd. Fries says the flowers are purple, and distinguishes it from 
Sibirica, observing that it is arctic, and not alpine. Ruprecht, Ledebour, and Duby make 
of it Sibirica /3. 
Armeria vulgaris, L. I do not see how the distribution of the plants named under 
this can be treated apart. Of these A. alpina is an inland form found in the Alps of 
various parts of Europe, though not Scandinavian according to Fries ; it is the A 
r 
7 alpina of DeCandolle. A. elongata, Hoffm 
entered as Lapponian 
by Fries; it is referred to Armeria a by Ledebour. A. Lobradorica, Wallr., is vulgaris 
i of Meyen's Labrador plants. A. arctica, Rupr., is A. vulgaris of Xyman, and rulgaris 
&. arctica of Ledebour. A. Macloviana, Cham., is the same with Andina, which Torrey 
(who has a var. California) refers to vulgaris, observing that many of the species broken 
off from vulgaris had better be referred back (Bot. Whipple's Exped. p. 62). 
Rumex Sipjwlapathum, Fr„ is reduced to aquaticus by Meisner in DC. Prod., and in 
part by Ledebour. 
P. arcticus, Trautv. I am unacquainted with this plant, which would seem not to dim r 
from P. aquaticus in any important character, or in distribution. Trautvetter (Plant. 
Taimyr.) observes that it is perhaps Chamisso's variety of domesticus with a simple whorled 
raceme. 
P. domesticus, Hartmn., is aquaticus of Wahienberg. Fries reduces aquaticus, L., 
to a var. of domesticus. Both are Lapponian. Koch separates them, hut by characters 
