10 B Canadian Arctic Expedition, 1913-18 



The species enumerated in the following pages represent a certain type of 

 the genus, and the only one known from the arctic regions which by sonie 

 authors has been considered worthy of generic rank, distinct from Glycerin 

 sensu strictiori. As a section of Glyceria this type was described already by 

 Elias Fries^ under Heleochloae, while most of the other species were referred to 

 the section Glyceriae genuinae Kunth. According to Fries the principal charac- 

 ters of the latter were "Stylus distinctus, pilis stigmatis denticulatis. Valvula 

 exterior septemnervis, nervis elevatis, etc." In the Heleochloae the character- 

 ization reads: "Stigmata subsessilia, simpliciter plumosa. Valvula exterior 

 5-nervis, nervis obsoletis. Festucae spec. Kunth." 



Very brief and incomplete is the diagnosis by Hackel,^ namely: "Glyceria, 

 styles distinct, lodicules grown together; and Airopis, styles none, lodicules 

 distinct." 



Glyceria vilfoidea (Ands.) Th. Fries (Fig. A: 4-5). This well-known and, 

 on the arctic shores, so very frequent species has recently been transferred from 

 one species to another or reduced to a mere variety. By Scribner and Merrill it is 

 considered identical with Trinius' Poa phryganodes (I.e.) and has suffered a similar 

 fate in the hands of Fernald and Weatherby (I.e.). It would, however, seem very 

 strange if the earlier authors familiar with the species described by Trinius had not 

 discovered that Anderson's Catabrosa vilfoidea was identical with it. Trautvetter,' 

 for instance, does not cite the species of Trinius as a synonym oi Glyceria vilfoidea 

 (Ands.); neither do Kj oilman and Lundstrom in their extensive writings on 

 arctic botany, nor Lange in his Conspectus (I.e.). As long as we feel sure, and 

 indeed unquestionably so, about the identity of Glyceria vilfoidea but not of 

 the other plant, it would naturally be more safe to retain this name, even if it 

 be of a younger date than Poa phryganodes. Dr. Trimen laid down a very good 

 canon about names in botany, viz. : to take the most certain name, even if it 

 be of a younger date; for nothing works so badly as to take an uncertain name; 

 it is disputed, and we may have several names running at once. In recent 

 years works dealing with enumerations of plants from various countries are 

 actually filled with new combinations because the authors believe that they 

 have detected a much older name than the one now in use; very many of these 

 old names, however, are so uncertain that the earlier writers discarded them, 

 and the result is, of course, the introduction of an older name, which is supposed 

 to be correct, until still another be proposed, thus involving an immense 

 amount of new combinations. Examples of this kind abound in recent works; 

 we need only mention the much disputed Poa triflora Gilib., Carex fusca All., 

 C. Halleri Gunn., etc., names that were never accepted by the earlier writers 

 on systematic botany. And as long as the old masters discarded such names, 

 they surely must have had some reason for doing so; in any case the earlier 

 writers, I mean Trautvetter, Blytt, Hartman, Fries, Lange, Wahlenberg, for 

 instance, were certainly more familiar with the writings of Gilibert, Allioni, and 

 Gunner, for instance, than authors of to-day. 



Recently G. vilfoidea has also been referred to G. maritima as a variety, 

 respectively "Atropis" or " Puccinellia," thus involving "new combinations." 



Meanwhile Krok * claims that G. vilfoidea was actually discovered in the 

 year 1838 by Laestadius in Finmarken, and that he called it G. distans var. 

 reptans Laest., but without publishing the diagnosis. The fact that the plant 

 became described by Hartman * several years before Anderson described his 

 Catabrosa vilfoidea, induced Krok to suggest the name G. vilfoidea to be changed 

 to G. reptans (Laest.). However, since the name G. vilfoidea is the one used by 

 the leading authors on arctic botany, and since we know the species with absolute 

 certainty, the name "vilfoidea" proposed by Anderson ought to be retained. 



' Novit. Florae Suecicae. Mant. II, 1839. 



^ in Engler's: Die nat. Pflanzenf. 



^ Inorementa Florae Phanerogamae Rossicae. Fasc. IV. Petropolis, 1884, p. 850. 



' Tvanne i Finmarken dterfunna fanerogamer (Bot. Notis. Lund, 1899, p. 137). 



' Excursions Flora Ed. I. 1846. 



