62 H. G. SIMMONS. [sec. arct. exp. fram 



usually the first to flower. Even so far north as Discovery Harbour, 

 it has been found in bloom already on June 1st (1882, Greely). In 

 Fram Harbour, I also saw it flowering, June 1st, 1899, but the following 

 years it came a little later. 



Occurrence. Common and abundant all over Ellesmereland (first 

 mentioned from Gape Frazer by Hayes, and in his collection from Gale 

 Point; by Wetherill from Cape Faraday, and also from Weyprecht 

 Island in the Stein collection according to Holm). From the western 

 coast I only have specimens from Bay Fjord (482, leg. Bay) and 

 Braskerud Plain (697, leg. Isachsen), but I also saw it in several 

 places up into Baumann Fjord, and I presume that it is equally common 

 there as to the east. Specimens in the collection : Cape Rutherford (325), 

 Fram Harbour (283, 1094, 1162), Bedford Pim Island (265, 1311), Fram 

 Fjord (1614), Harbour Fjord (2050), Goose Fjord (3275, 3901). 



Distribution: Throughout the Arctic Regions and in the higher 

 parts of the temperate, down to New Foundland, Anticosti, Vermont, 

 Wyoming and Oregon, Unalaschka, Alatau, Tibet, Alps, Siebenbilrgen, 

 Appenines, Sierra Nevada. 



Saxifraga Hagellaria, Willd. 



S. flagellaris, Willdenow, in Sternberg, Revis. Saxifr., 1810; Ekgler, Mon. Saxifr. ; 

 Nathorst, N. W. GrBnl. ; Hart, Bot. Br. Pol. Exp. ; Greely, Rep. ; Brown, 

 Chlor. Melv. ; Hooker, F1. Bor. Amer. ; Kjellman, in Vegaexp. ; Ledebour, F1. 

 Ross.; Andersson & Hesselman, Spetsb. karlv. ; S. flag. var. setigera, Engler, 

 Mon. Saxifr. ; Lange, Consp. Fl. Groenl. ; Kruuse, List E. Greenl. ; S. setigera, 

 Phrsh, Fl. Amer. sept. 



Fig. Sternberg, 1. c, T. 6; Fl. Dan., T. 2353; Ledebour, Ic. pi. Fl. Ross., T. 321; 



Hooker, 1. c, 1, T. 87. 



When PuRSH (1. c, p. 312), 1814, described his species S. setigera, 

 he was doubtless quite ignorant of the fact, that the same plant had, 

 four years before, become known from the Caucasus and had been 

 described. Moreover his material must have been very bad, as he has been 

 induced to think that the flowers were white. Other authors soon came to 

 the conclusion that the same plant was meant, but some, for instance Hooker 

 (I. c.) and Engler (I. c, p. 225) have looked upon it as a variety. The last- 

 mentioned author also gives a description of it, which is, however, some- 

 what different from that of Pursh, who had described it with charac- 

 ters that all, so far as they are correct, apply to the type. The distin- 

 guished mark for the variety of Engler: "Calycis laciniae ovatae ad 

 medium usque coahtae. Tubus ovario adhaerens", however, does not 

 hold good for most of my specimens, any more than it does for many 



