108 H. G. SIMMONS. [sec. ARCT. exp. fram 



seen from: Kingnite, Cumberland Sound (Taylor) in Baffinland; Melville 

 Island; Mercy Bay (Miertsching) in Banks Land, Cambridge Bay 

 (Andersson) in Victoria Land; Arctic America (specimens collected by 

 Back and Richardson seen); Rocky Mountains (specimens seen: John 

 Macoun n. 34, Morley, Foothills of Rocky Mountains, 1885; Lat. 

 39°— 41°, No 15, E. Hall and J. P. Harbour, colls. 1862; other 

 American localities I dare not to refer to it); Arctic Siberia, Altai, 

 Novaja Semlja (I refer here also Feilden's R. auricomus, notwith- 

 standing what is said about the round head of fruits (1. c, p. 7) as a 

 single round one may be formed also from a feeble axillary flower of R. 

 affinis, and as all Novaja Semlja specimens which 1 have seen belong 

 to the latter plant), Spitsbergen. 



Ranunculus sulphurous, Soland. 



a. sulphuretis, Solandek, in Phipps, Voy. N. Pole, 1774; Nathorst, N. W. Gronl.; 

 Hart, Bot. Br. Pol. Exp.; Kjellman, in Vegaexp.; Feilden, F1. pi. Nov. Zeml.; 

 Malmgren, Spetsb. Fan. Fl. ; Andersson & Hesselman, Spetsb. karlv. ; Hart- 

 man, Skand. Fl. ; R. nivalis var. sulphureus, Ledebour, Fl. Ross. ; Greely, 

 Rep.; a. nivalis /?, Hooker, Fl. Bor. Amer. ; R. Brown, Chlor. Melv. ; R. 

 nivalis, Davis, Ran. N. Amer., ex p.; R. altaicus, Laxman, Descr. plant. 

 Sibir., 1774; Lange, Consp. Fl. Groenl.; Kruuse, List E. Greenl.; Ledebour, 

 Fl. Ross. 



Fig. Laxman, 1. c, T. 8; Suppl. Fl. Dan., T. 82. 



This species indeed, has a rather great resemblance to R. nivalis, 

 L., which makes it, in early stages or small individuals, somewhat dif- 

 ficult to distinguish. It may, however, generally be separated even then, 

 by its stiff, ei'ect, mode of growth, by the generally somewhat larger 

 flower, and by the basal leaves, which are not so much incised, and 

 have more obtuse lobes. Moreover, R. sulphureus is generally more 

 hairy in peduncle and sepals. In fruiting state it can always infallibly 

 be recognised by its almost orbicular head of fruits and by the torus, 

 which is covered with coarse brown hairs between the carpels. These 

 hairs, in living specimens at least, can also be seen already in earlier 

 stages, if the pistils are carefully removed. In dried specimens in a 

 flowering state, it is not always easy to make this principal character 

 visible, and in this, I think, the cause is to be sought for the fact 

 that authors who have only studied the plant in question from dried 

 material, will so often put it under R. nivalis, whereas those who have 

 had an opportunity of studying it from nature, in most cases have se- 

 parated them. Malmgren, 1. c, also dwells with astonishment upon 



