H. G. SIMMONS. fsEC. ARCT. EXP. FRAM 



Fl., p. 131) Z>. Martinsiana, using a name which stood in a list of 

 Spitsbergen plants by J. Gay in Ch. Martins Observations sur les 

 glaciers du Spilzberg, etc., in Bibl. Univ. de Geneve, N. S., T. 28, p. 146, 

 from 1840. This indeed was not described, but Fries now gave a de- 

 scription to the name of Gay, which he referred to this plant after 

 having seen an original specimen. But the same specimen, which is 

 now in the Stockholm herbarium^, I have also examined, and have 

 come to the conclusion that it can be no other plant, than a stunted 

 D. alpina (cf. Gelert, 1. c, p. 301). Fries, however, admits that if 

 the D. micropetala of Hooker is the same plant, the latter name is 

 to be preferred. Soon after the Consp. Fl. Nov. Semi, of Trautvetter 

 appeared, and a plant was recorded which was called D. altaica. I 

 have not seen Trautvetter's specimens, but it seems very probable 

 that, as Fries assumes, the same plant was meant, as that which the 

 latter author had previously called D. Martinsiana. Now the name 

 altaica was the oldest, D. rupestris var. altaica being established in 

 Ic. pi. Fl. Ross., p. 19, T. 260, by Ledebour and consequently Fries 

 in Nov. Semi. Veg., cancels his previous name and calls the plant 

 D. altaica. 



The question therefore is, has really the same plant as the arctic 

 one, been understood by Ledebour? The original description says: 

 "foliis saepius dentatis, scapis plerumque mono- vel diphyllis, rarius 

 aphyllis, siculis ellipticis vel oblongo-ellipticis". This does not agree 

 with D. subcapitata, and the figure quoted also shows clearly that it 

 is a small form of D. hirta which is meant. Fries (p. 37) indeed says 

 that the figure of Ledebour is so bad, featureless, and partly wrong, 

 that it gives no idea of the plant, but, having seen an original specimen 

 from the Altai, collected by Bunge, in the Nat. Hist. Mus., I must assert 

 that the T. 260 of Ledebour gives a fairly good representation of the 

 plant, which is nothing but a small D. hirta. Also C. A. Meyer in 

 Ledebour, Fl. Alt., p. 72, keeps the same diagnosis and speaks expressly 

 of leafy stems and branches from the lowest axil, so as to leave no 

 doubt that a D. hirta is meant. It is somewhat less clear what Bunge, 

 Verz. Altai Pfl., p. 70—71, means; perhaps he has had not only a small 

 D. hirta, but also our plant, in his material, as also seems necessary 

 to assume in reading the description of D. altaica of Bunge (Del. sem. 

 hort. dorp., 1841) where the plant is elevated to the rank of species. 



' I am greatly indebted to Professor Lindman, who has kindly sent me a consider- 

 able collection of arctic Drabae from that Museum for a new inspection which 

 yras necessary, before I could make up my treatment of the genus. 



