90 H. G. SIMMONS. [SEC. ARCT. EXP. FRAM 
point to ZL. nivalis, to the above-mentioned species. It will, however, 
be requisite to treat every author separately, beginning with the first 
report. 
SUTHERLAND, Voyage, enumerates L. hyperborea. As I have not 
seen any specimen, I think it best to refer it to the species here in 
question, as Natuorst, N. W. Grénl., has already done. 
Dickie, Not. fl. pl., in InGLEFreELD, Summer Search, enumerates L. 
campestris var. congesta. Now first of all, that species is absent from 
the whole of Greenland, and most probably from the entire arctic region, 
as is also the variety. There does indeed exist a corresponding variety 
of L. multiflora, (Euru.) Les., but that also, as well as the main species, 
is lacking in our area. As the name is generally used for the present 
species, I refer his localities to it. 
Duranp, Pl. Kan., has both LZ. hyperborea and L. arcuata in his 
list; his descriptions clearly show that he has had the present variety 
as well as L. nivalis (hyperborea) before him. In Hayes’s collection, 
he has perhaps had only the former represented. The plant which is 
here called L. campestris var. congesta, must however, be left out of the 
list as it is noted for ‘“Tessiussak, Sept. 4”, and was perhaps collected 
in Danish Greenland. 
Hart, Bot. Br. Pol. Exp., has “Z. campestris (var. congesta)”’, “L. 
multiflora” and “L. arcuata (L. hyperborea)’. I have seen his speci- 
mens in the London collections and can therefore assert, that the former 
name signifies the species here in question as I have already stated 
(l. c., p. 133). The locality Polaris Bay is consequently to be referred to 
I. arcuata var. confusa, and the border-line of L. multiflora must 
accordingly be drawn a long way south of 81° 40’, where Lance has 
been induced to draw it, by relying on the statement of Harr. Even 
GeLert (in Ostenretp, FI. Arct., p. 31) gives it the same range. If his 
“I!” after the indication “West Greenl. 60°—81° 40’” is to signify that he 
has seen Hart’s specimens, I cannot agree with him in his identifica- 
tion. The ZL. arcuata of Hart includes also DL. nivalis, as I have found 
in examining his specimens, that is to say it is identical with Brown's 
L. hyperborea. 
Natuorst, |. c., has L. arcuata var. confusa from [vsugigsok under 
the right name, but among his specimens of Luzula some of L. nivalis 
are also to be found. Naruorst, l. c., p. 28, speaks of these as similar 
to L. arctica, but has referred them to the other species on the au- 
thority of Ksettman. In the Stockholm herbarium the name was altered 
