326 E. Jorgensen. 
mination. On account of the absence of definite limits.such a 
mistake is not surprising, even from the hand of the best ex- 
perts, especially as Wettstein’s species mostly are geogra- 
phical ones and consequently presuppose a tolerably complete 
knowledge of the Euphrasia-flora of the country in question. 
At any rate, E. Rostkoviana has not (yet) got a firm footing 
in our country; only a few instances are known, where specimens | 
occur which might perhaps be taken for descendants of E. Rost- 
koviana, having mixed up with E. brevipila by hybridization. 
In this case, one would, however — according to the Mendelian 
laws — expect to find some pure specimens of E. Rostkoviana; 
they were, however, vainly searched for in the most promising 
locality (Bangsund). All the specimens I have seen may also 
very well be considered to be deviating forms of our common 
E. brevipila, which is exceedingly variable. 
The supposed E. montana, E. fennica and E. hirtella are 
no doubt only forms of E. “tenuis Wettst. With regard to 
E. nemorosa being a Norwegian species some doubt might still 
be possible; the specimens in question are, however, most pro- 
bably small-flowered forms belonging to the very variable E. bo- 
realis and the remarkable transitional form to E. micrantha, 
named by me provisionally E. borealis v. graciliformis. 
Most bewildering were the specimens which Wettstein 
(provisionally) determined as E. cærulea, and I am not yet sure, 
where they most naturally should be placed. In this case we 
are, however, dealing with a little colony of specimens, gathered 
by myself when I was just searching the locality for forms of 
Euphrasia; { therefore cannot but find this determination very 
doubtful. I myself thought I had found a forma estivalis of 
E. nemorosa; such a form has really been described by Chabert 
from France. Most probably the suppositious E. cærulea is a 
very deviating small-flowered form of E. borealis, or perhaps of 
E. minima. 
E. bottnica from Northern Norway is what I have called | 
E. latifolia v. inundata. 
Of all the true Norwegian systematical units only two are 
species in the usual sense of the word, viz. E. salisburgensis on 
the one hand, and the rest of the species mentioned above taken 
together on the other. Especially the large-flowered forms — 
