August 5, 1922] 



NA TURE 



171 



specific names in the case of eleven, or 4 per cent, of the 

 275 plants enumerated. If to these we add the cases 

 in which specific determination remains more or less 

 doubtful, we have a total of 27, or nearly 10 per cent, of 

 the whole. The authors have laid those who may 

 study this census under a lasting obligation by record- 

 ing the precise condition of the material available and 

 thereby indicating why, as well as where, doubt attaches 

 to certain identifications. 



The imperfection of much of Dr. Hedin's material 

 has induced the authors to restrict themselves to a 

 taxonomic enumeration of the plants actually found 

 by that eminent traveller in East Turkestan, the 

 Pamirs, and Tibet, and to regard their work as supple- 

 mentary to that of Dr. Hemsley 1 and Madame Fedt- 

 schenko. 2 Other considerations may have weighed 

 with workers who are recognised as authorities both on 

 plant-distribution and plant-association, when deciding 

 that phytogeographical or ecological discussion is not 

 yet feasible. 



The census shows that Dr. Hedin collected 57 

 distinct plants in East Turkestan, 72 in the Pamirs, and 

 185 in Tibet, but that two only of the plants enumerated 

 were found by him in all three regions ; only one not 

 met with in Tibet was found both in East Turkestan 

 and the Pamirs, and only eight not met with in the 

 Pamirs are recorded both from East Turkestan and 

 Tibet, while no fewer than 27 not met with in East 

 Turkestan are recorded both from the Pamirs and 

 Tibet. 



These figures are not surprising when regard is had to 

 the fact that all the Pamir plants were collected at eleva- 

 tions of 12,000-15,000 feet and all the Tibetan ones 

 were found at elevations of 8500-17,000 feet, whereas 

 44 of the 57 plants reported from East Turkestan were 

 met with at altitudes of only 2750-3500 feet. Con- 

 formity as regards elevation may account for the 

 appreciable common element in the Pamir and the 

 Tibet vegetations ; disparity in this respect may 

 explain the relative isolation of East Turkestan. That 

 isolation may indeed be greater than the census 

 suggests. All the East Turkestan plants reported 

 from altitudes exceeding 3500 feet were found in one 

 or other of three localities. The thirteen plants in 

 question include one of the three recorded as common 

 to East Turkestan and the Pamirs and seven of the ten 

 recorded as common to East Turkestan and Tibet. 



One of these three localities is Toghde-gol, 9100 feet, 

 in southern Tsaidam. This locality is cited in the 

 census for four plants. Only in the case of two of these 

 is the place said to be in East Turkestan ; under the 



1 Hi.- Flora of Tibet or High Asia: W. B. Hemsley, assisted by 

 H. H. W. Pearson (Journ. Linn. Soc, Bot. vol. xxxv. pp. 124-265, 1920). 



8 Flore du Pamir : Olga Fedtschenko (Act. Hort. Petrop., vol. -\xi. 

 PP- 233-47L 1903; ibid. vol. xxiv. pp. 123-154, 1904; and pp. 313-355, 

 1905 ; ibid. vol. xxviii. pp. 97-126, 1907 ; and pp. 455-514, 1909). 



NO. 2/53, VOL. I IO] 



others it is said to be in Tibet. Another of the localities 

 is Bash-kurgan, 8750 feet, south of Lop-nor, which is 

 cited for five plants. In connexion with two of these 

 the place is said to be in East Turkestan, under a third it 

 is stated to be on the East Turkestan-Tibet frontier, and 

 in connexion with the two remaining plants the locality 

 is placed in Tibet. The third locality, Tatlik-bulak, 

 6500 feet, is mentioned in connexion with eight plants. 

 Here we have no such formal inconsistency ; on each 

 occasion the place is attributed to East Turkestan. 

 But this does not remove all doubt ; Tatlik-bulak lies 

 south-east of Lop-nor and therefore farther east than 

 Bash-kurgan. 



It is possible that this discrepancy of statement 

 merely reflects a difference in point of view. In floristic 

 studies it is often convenient to respect political 

 boundaries ; in phytogeographical ones it is always 

 desirable to recognise natural frontiers. From an 

 ethnic standpoint all three localities may belong to 

 East Turkestan ; the evidence of the plants themselves 

 suggests that from a botanical standpoint all three 

 belong to Tibet. However this may be, the census 

 prepared by Prof. Ostenfeld and Dr. Paulsen appears to 

 justify one general conclusion. While it is clear that 

 East Turkestan can be properly included in the region 

 our authors speak of as " Inner Asia," it must be 

 excluded from the region for which Dr. Hemsley has 

 employed the term " High Asia." 



How deeply we are indebted to Dr. Paulsen for our 

 acquaintance with the vegetation of the western Pamirs, 

 the drainage of which is towards Ferghana and the 

 Oxus, readers of Nature are already aware. Regard- 

 ing the plants of the eastern Pamirs, the streams of 

 which flow towards Yarkand, we have hitherto known 

 little beyond what was to be learned from a few 

 specimens gathered by Sir F. E. Younghusband thirty 

 years ago in the Pamir of Taghdumbash. All save one 

 of the Pamir plants in Dr. Hedin's collections are 

 reported from the eastern half of the region ; the 

 evidence they afford is thus of unusual importance. 



Unfortunately, that evidence'is still far from complete. 

 From the Taghdumbash Pamir, which from its con- 

 nexions to the south and the east should perhaps prove 

 the most " critical " of these high' valleys, we have 

 again to be content with a few specimens. Nearly 30 

 per cent, of Dr. Hedin's Pamir plants are from the 

 Karakul Pamir, probably the least critical of the 

 eastern valleys. More than 40 per cent, were gathered 

 on the slopes of Mustagh-ata, highest of the Pamir 

 peaks, but in this case it is not clear that all the 

 Mustagh-ata plants were collected in one Pamir. 

 Until the vegetation of these various eastern Pamirs 

 has been investigated as exhaustively as that of the 

 Little Pamir was by Lt.-Col. Alcock during the Pamir 



