96 H. G. SIMMONS. (SEC. ARCT. EXP, FRAM 
parts, makes this most probable. There are, however, only a few state- 
ments about it in the papers of the earher authors. 
Occurrence. S. Ivsugigsok (NatHorst); Inglefield Gulf: Glacier 
Valley (WETHERILL); Foulke Fjord (Harv, 239, 1490). N. Hannah Is- 
land (Hart). 
Carex scirpoidea, Micux. 
C. scirpoidea, Mrcnavux, FI. Bor. Amer., 1803; Ostenre.p, FI. Arct.; 
Lance, Consp. Fl. Groenl.; Kruusz, List E. Greenl. et List Angmags.; 
WetuHerRiLL, List 1894; Hooker, FI. Bor. Amer.; Brirron & Brown, Ill. 
Fl.; Ksetuman, Fan. Vestesk. land et As. Beringss. Fan.; Hartman, 
Skand. Fl.; C. Wormskjoldiana, Hornemany, FI. Dan., 9, 1818, et Dansk 
Oec. Plantel. I, Ed. 3. 
Fig. Fl. Dan., T. 1528; Ostsnrerp, |. c., fig. 58. 
I insert this species in the list entirely on the authority of Wetx- 
ERILL, as I have not seen any specimens from North-Western Green- 
land. As the species is spread generally all over Danish Greenland and 
also in East Greenland, it seems a priori probable that it should grow 
also within our area. , 
Occurrence. S. Cape York (WxrTHERILL). 
Distribution: East and West Greenland, Baffin Land, Arctic 
America, Canada, Mountains of New England, Rocky Mountains down 
to Utah and California, Alaska, Chukches Land, Northern Norway | 
(Saltdalen). 
Carex dioica, L. 
This species is reported only by Bsssets from Hall Land. Now if 
there was only his own identification of it, I should not in the least 
hesitate to exclude it from the flora, as it is highly improbable that it 
would grow so far north as 81—82° N. and be lacking to the south; 
but we have not got only Besses’ own word for it (Exp. Pol. Amer., 
p. 297), it is also maintained in his second list (Amer. Nordpol-Exp., 
p. 804) where the determinations are said to have been verified by Asa 
Gray. Natuorst, who in N. W. Gronl. had excluded it as highly doubt- 
ful, has given it, in Nachtr., a place in the list on the authority of Asa 
Gray. Indeed Gray’s evidence would seem to be satisfactory, but as 
there is yet another doubtlessly wrong identification in the list (Erio- 
phorum vaginatum), I think one may be allowed still to doubt the 
existence there of Carex dioica. The material may perhaps have been 
