126 Herman G. Simmons 
HoopER (LS) mentions this species also from Lyon Inlet, and adds »not 
plentiful». In the KH there is a specimen from one of Pärry's voyages without 
note aboiit the locality; perhaps it may be from Mel ville Island, at least no other 
specimens confirms the record in the Chlor. Melv. It is, however, very probable 
that the plant occurs there. As I have only seen a single Campanula-s-pecimen 
from the voyage of the »Enterprise», I thini^ Hookek must by an error in writing 
have put in the name quoted above in the list. 
Compositae, Adans 
189. Erigeron compositus, Pursh. 
Distribution. Banks Land: Bäring Land, M'Clure (KH) ; Melville Island, 
Parry ? (KH); Ellesmereland : Discovery Harbour in Lady Franklin Bay, Hart, 
Greély. 
Geographic area. Northern Greenland, western arctic and subarctic Ame- 
rica, Rocky Mountains. 
The undetermined species of Erigeron in Hooker's Coll. doubtless is the 
present one. As for the Melville Island specimen, it seems to belong to the collec- 
tions of Parry'8 first voyage, and even if it is wanting in Brown's list, its occur- 
renco there must seem very probable. 
190. Erigeron uniflorus, L. 
Distribution. Banks Land, Anderson (ex Hooker, Coll., & Armstrong, 
Narrat.), Ballast Beach, Miertsching (KH); Victoria Land: Minto Inlet, Anderson 
(ex Hooker, 1. c, & Armstrong, 1. c); [Melville Peninsula: Winter Island, Parry 
(NHM), Lyon Inlet, Hooper (LS), Five Hawser Bay, Parry (NHM, CH), Repulse 
Bay (ex Hooker, App. Parry II), interiör, Rae (Exp.)]; Bafiin Land: Cumberland 
Gulf, Kingnnit (NHM), Cape Searle, Cape Adair, Scotts Bay, Tayloh (Pl. Baff.); 
Ellesmereland: Discovery Harbour, Hart, Greely. 
Geograpliic area. Greenland, northern North America, Rocky Mountains. 
northeru parts and mountains of central Asia and Europé. 
I have only after some hesitatiou resolved upon using the Linnean name of 
this plant in its original sense. For doing so I have, however, two rather good 
reasons, viz., firstly that I am not convinced about the specific value of the forms 
which have been separated from it, and secondly that I could not put in their right 
place such records, as I have had no occasion to verify by inspection of specimens. 
The fact that E. eriocephaJus, J. Vahl, and also E. unahishJcensis, (DC.) Vierh., if 
these are really different, seem to be spread within the are of E. uniflorus all around 
the pole, and found together in many places, in my opinion speaks against their 
right to be looked upon as species, or at least no phytogeographical interest seems 
to attach to them. If they should be separated, most arctic american specimens 
would, I think, go to E. eriocephalus. 
