MACLOSKIE I REVISION OF FLORA PATAGONICA. 43 



Magellanicce without addition of a description cannot, however, according 

 to the international rules of nomenclature, be cited as the author. The 

 plant was, at first, described by Grisebach as an Agrostis, and, recently, 

 Hackel has informed me that it belongs to the genus Calamagrostis. D. 



C. NEGLECTA Gaertn. 

 Syn. C. stricta Trin. Deyeuxia neglecta Kunth. 



Root creeping ; culm simple, strict, glabrous, 45-60 cm. Leaves linear, 

 acuminate, plane, with scabrid margin. Ligule obtuse. Panicle narrow, 

 spreading, 10 cm.; glumes equal, oblong, acute; upper valve shorter than 

 lower ; seta exsert below the middle, scarcely exceeding the valve. 



Europe, N. Amer.; Patagonia, Fuegia. 



From not a few localities in Fuegia, as well as southern and western 

 Patagonia, I have brought back specimens of this species, and the materia, 

 thus collected was defined by Professor E. Hackel. Later on, that 

 Swedish expert in North-European Calamagrostides, Dr. S. Almquist has, 

 likewise, examined the same specimens and arrived at the same results as 

 Hackel. Almquist, however, goes a step farther than Hackel, inasmuch 

 as he divides the material into two groups, of which the one comprising 

 the majority of specimens is characterized by the culm being compara- 

 tively thick and robust, thereby differing from the typical C. neglecta. 

 According to Almquist this form should be taken to be a subantarctic 

 breed of the present species. 



To the other group belong the specimens collected at Rio Aysen in W. 

 Patagonia. These also have a very robust culm, but show a more marked 

 difference from the type by their longer and denser, slightly nodding 

 panicles, which are sometimes discontinued at the base. These latter 

 Almquist takes as a subspecies of C. neglecta. 



That also E. Hackel has noticed the greater discrepancy of the speci- 

 mens from the Rio Aysen valley, is evident by a note by him on the label 

 attached: "An C. poceoides Steud.?" and this presumption is, naturally, 

 supposed by Steudel's description of his species. Whether, in fact, the 

 specimens in question are identical with C. poceoides, cannot be decided 

 without a comparison with an authentic specimen of that species. Until 

 this point shall have been settled, I think, the baptism of the subspecies 

 might be deferred. 



By the examination of the material referred to, it has been conclusively 



