94 H. G. SIMMONS. [SEC. ARCT. EXP. FRAM 
Carex rigida, Gooo. 
C. rigida, Goopenoucu, Obs. Br. Carex, 1794; OsTenrezp, FI. 
Arct.; Lanax, Consp. Fl. Groenl.; Kruuse, List E. Greenl. et List Ang- 
mags.; Natuorst, N. W.: Grénl.; Hooxer, Fl. Bor. Amer:; Ksetiman, in 
Vegaexp.; Horm, Nov. Zeml. Veg.; Fritpen, Fl. Kolguev; AnpErsson 
& HesseLman, Spetsb. karlv.; Harrman, Skand. Fl.; C. sawatilis, Waun- 
LenBeRG, Fl. Lapp.; Lepesour, Fl. Ross.; non Linnazus, Sp. Plant. 
Fig. Fl. Dan., T. 159, 2479, 2480; AnpEersson, Cyp. Scand., T. 5, 
fig. 46; OsTENFELD, |. c., fig. 52. 
As C. rigida shows a very considerable resemblance to C. aqua- 
tilis var. stans, which is a very common plant in Ellesmereland, and 
not at all rare in the northern part of Danish Greenland, I was for a 
time disposed to look upon all the statements about C. rigida from N. 
W. Greenland as by right referable to C. aquatilis var. stans. I have, 
however, found that NatHorst’s specimens from Ivsugigsok cannot be 
transferred to it, and consequently the other indications may also belong 
to the species here in question, and must be discussed in detail. 
Duranp, Pl. Kan., p. 199, says about C. rigida, “frequent at al- 
most every station”. I think, however, that no heed is to be paid to 
his statement, as he has reported no other Carex from N. W. Green- 
land, and as Kane cannot have found this species so commonly distri- 
buted and have overlooked other common species such for instance as 
C. misandra. Furthermore, Duranp has not generally shown himself 
very reliable in his identifications. 
When the statement of the plant as common in our area is put 
aside, we come to the same author’s report of it from Netlik in Enum. 
Pl. Smith S., p. 95. What is meant here I am of course not able to 
ascertain, not having the specimens at my disposal. 
Further, there is Hart's report of it from Foulke Fjord (Bot. Br. 
Pol. Exp., p. 39). As far as my notes from my studies in the Lon- 
don collections afford evidence, there are no specimens from that locality 
either in the Natural History Museum or at Kew. All Hart's speci- 
mens from Ellesmereland belong to C. aquatilis var. stans. This indeed 
might be an inducement to refer the Foulke Fjord plant (if it is collected 
there at all and only noted) to the same, but that again is unknown in 
N. W. Grenland. 
Besides Natuorst’s Ivsugigsok plant, which I have examined in the 
Stockholm Museum, we have Werueri1’s reports in List 1894 left, which 
I think we must accept as based on right determination. 
