128 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [AUGUST 
duae. Ovaria sessilia vel brevissime pedicellata, dense griseo- 
tomentosa. Stylus longitudine varians, nunc stigma aequans, 
nunc fere dimidio brevior. Glandula unica. 
Judging by these characters, there seems no doubt what form 
must be taken for the true S. arctica Br., that is, S. anglorum 
Cham. According to TRAUTVETTER (see under S. arctica Pall.) 
there have been distributed by HooKER specimens under the name 
of S. arctica Br. which do not belong to this species, and TRAuT- 
VETTER (1847) says that his arctica of 1832 (t. VI.) is not identical 
with Brown’s plant. However, so far as I can judge by TRAUT- 
VETTER’S diagnosis and figure, I believe that he had the true S. 
anglorum before him. Of course, only an inspection of his type 
can make a final decision regarding its identity possible. Of 
ANDERSSON’S treatment of S. arctica Br. I have already spoken. 
Lunpstr6M, who apparently misinterpreted the name anglorum, 
chose ANDERSSON’S (varietal) name Brownei for what he believed 
to be S. arctica Br. I strongly suspect that S. Brownei Ldstr. only 
partly belongs to S. anglorum, and an investigation of LUNDSTROM’S — 
specimens from Nowaja Semlja is needed to decide what he really 
understood by his S. Brownei. It seems to me most unlikely that 
the true S. anglorum should at all occur on Nowaja Semlja or in 
Arctic Asia or Europe; and the description given by LUNDSTROM, 
in my opinion, does not fit BRown’s species. There may be in 
Arctic Asia and Europe similar forms which, however, in reality 
belong to S. arctica Pall. 
Bess, as already stated, unfortunately did not know LUND- 
stROM’s work when proposing a new S. Brownii which comprised 
S. arctica And. (1868) “excl. var. nervosa.” He created a new mix- 
ture of forms, including S. groenlandica, S. petrophila, S. taimyrensts, 
and others. In April 1899 RypBERG said: ‘There is scarcely a 
species that has been so misunderstood as this [S. arctica Br.]. 
Even Mr. Brexs, who cleared up somewhat the discrepancy between 
S. arctica Pall. and S. arctica Br., had a very vague idea about the 
latter.” Rypserc himself did not interpret correctly BROWN’S 
species. He quotes as type “Franklin Expedition, Dr. Richard- 
son,” and cites a specimen of the “Herb. Hooker, Barratt, and 
Torrey, no. 93,” which I have before me and which bears the label 
