84 Nr. 2. C. H. OSTENFELD and C. SYRACH LARSEN: 
rence east of Tatra had been produced. Our own opinion 
is that ihe five localities mentioned here can be relied upon. 
As already mentioned (p. 74), the two most southerly 
localities are those cited by Hayek, and classified as L. 
decidua, namely, the Cibin Mountains and the mountains 
to the south of Kronstadt, and as we have no material 
at our disposal regarding these two localities, they must 
for the present be regarded as L. decidua, even though 
their geographical position renders it probable that they 
may belong to L. decidua var. polonica; the three localities 
in the north must, in fact, be classified with this variety 
(see Map VII). 
The facts regarding these three localities are as follows: 
CziHak & SzaBo make a reference to L. sibirica in Rumania 
in 1863 (Flora 1863, p. 278), and in 1868 JANKA gave a 
detailed description of his discovery of L. sibirica at Ceahlau 
(Ostr. Bot. Zeitschr. 1868, pp. 365, 366). These statements 
as well as others of still older date (1835 and 1842) are 
quoted by Kanirz in support of the discovery of L. sibirica 
in Moldavia (Kanıtz: Plantas Romaniae, 1879—81, p. 139). 
Later Rumanian botanists as well as others are agreed that 
the tree is L. sibirica (BRANDZA, GRECESCU, PANTU & PROCO- 
PIANU-PROCOPOVICI, HORNUZAKI, VIERHAPPER, and PRODAN). 
Other botanists have had doubts as to its being L. sibirica 
(Ascus. & GRAEBN. 1897, and Erwes & Henry, 1907). 
ASCHERSON & GRAEBNER, having in their first edition adopted 
a sceptical attitude, state in the second edition, that they 
are now satisfied that the tree in question was the true L. 
sibirica. 
The light-coloured flowering cones and their pilosity 
have been specially quoted as being an indication that the 
tree found at Ceahlau in Moldavia (the most south-easterly 
