344 BOTANICAL GAZETTE |OCTOBER 
subcordata (And.) Schn. (see my first paper). In the synonymy he 
mentioned S. obovata Pursh with a ?, but this species is described 
with ‘‘amentis subcoetaneis sessilibus’”’? and does not apparently 
belong to our species. Furthermore, HooKeEr’s S. planifolia is the 
same as S. cordifolia as to Miss BRENTON’s specimens from Labra- 
dor, of which I have a photograph and fragments before me. The 
sheet in herb. K. contains 6 specimens with fruits and adult female 
flowers of which only one (the middle piece at the left hand side) 
seems to belong to a different form on account of the presence of 
stomata in the upper leaf surface which are wanting in typical 
S. cordifolia. 
Judging by the ample descriptions and the figures, TRAUTVET- 
TER’S.S. cordifolia and S. callicarpaea seem to represent nothing but 
two different stages of one species. His S. cordifolia is a poor speci- 
men of a female plant with young flowers, while the figure of his 
callicarpaea shows a fruiting specimen collected by HERZBERG at 
Okak. Of Rypperre’s S. callicarpaea I have only seen BELL'S 
Labrador specimen from ‘“‘ Nachhak” (Nachvak), a rather poor and 
sterile one (no. 18819, O.) which I cannot distinguish from typical 
S. cordifolia. 
The other specimen cited by RypBERG from Mt. Gaspé (prob- 
ably meaning Mount Albert, Gaspé Peninsula), collected in 1882 by 
Macoun (no. 18826 O.), has not been available to me; it may: 
belong to S. anglorum var. kophophylla Schn. 
ANDERSSON (1858) divided S. cordifolia Hook. in his S. subcor- 
data and S. alpestris americana, the latter representing the Labrador 
plant. In the Prodromus (1868) no mention is made of his alpestris 
and its 3 varieties of 1858, but only of the older S. alpestris Wulfen, 
which has nothing to do with it. S. cordifolia is cited under 
S. arctica 8 Brownei f. 1. obovata in the following sentence: ‘ Huc 
S. cordifolia Pursh fl. 2. p. 611; Hook. fl. boreali-amer. 2. 152; 
Trautv. /.c. p. 298 t. 9 ex Labrador forsan etiam pertinet”’; while 
on the following page under f. 3. fwmosa of the same variety he says 
“Nonne haec potissimum: S. cordifolia Pursh fl. Amer. syt. 2.611. ?, 
Trautv. l.c. p. 298 (quae tamen stylo longissimo insignis videtur!) ”, 
and S. callicarpaea Trautv. is mentioned as a quasi-synonym under 
the last form. Besides this ANDERSSON says under S. pyrenaica: 
