114 
They, furthermore, represent one single species, for a long time called 
A. vulgaris With. As, however, Withering’s A. vulgaris dates from 1796, 
it must give way to A. tenuis Sihth., which was published in 1794. 
In 1919, Hitchcock (12, p. 129) applied the name A. capillaris L. to 
this species, and a year later Schinz and Thellung (36, pp. 261-2) did the 
same. 
A. capillaris was described by Linnaeus (21, p. 62) under the section 
Muticae as follows: 
“Agrostis panicula capillari patente, calycibus subulatis aequalibus hispicliusculis 
coloratis, flosculis muticis. Roy. lugdb. 50. Dalib. paris. 23. 
Agrostis panicula tenuissima. FI. lapp. 45. 
Gramen montanum, panicula spadicea delicatiore. Bauh, pin. 3. prodr. 12. Scheuch. 
gram. 129. 
Habitat in Europae pratis. 
Panicula vere capillaris , tenuissimisque pedicellis singularis.” 
Schinz and Thellung (1. c.), arguing in favour of the application of 
the Linnean name A. capillaris to A. tenuis Sibth., maintain that, “as 
H, F. Richter (Cod. Linn. (1840) 77) already has rightly pointed out, 
there can be no doubt but that the by far nearest and most natural inter- 
pretation of the Linnean species is that in the sense of A. tenuis ( = vul- 
garis)”. 1 Now, Richter, in Codex Linnaeanus, p. 77, asserting that A. 
capillaris L., “excl. syn. FI. lapp.”, most certainly is synonymous with 
A. vulgaris With., i.e. with A. tenuis Sibth., refers to Roy. Lugd. which 
is the first citation after the description of A. capillaris in Species Plan- 
tarum. Royen’s diagnosis (35, p. 59) of the species referred to reads as 
follows: “Agrostis panicula compressor calycibus subulatis aequalibus 
hispidiusculis coloratis;” that is to say, the diagnosis is of a species of 
Agrostis having a contracted panicle. As A. tenuis Sibth. has an open 
panicle with spreading branches, it seems rather difficult to understand 
how the latter can so positively, as Richter has done, be identified with 
the species having a contracted panicle which is described by Royen. 
The second citation in Species Plantarum under A. capillaris is Dalib. 
paris. 28. To Dalibard’s description (5, pp. 23-24), which is a straight 
copy of Royen’s diagnosis in Flora Leydensis, is added a note: 
“Idem soboliferum”. 
Thus, the two first citations under A. capillaris L., in Species Plan- 
tarum, appear to refer to a species with contracted panicle which may or 
may not be stoloniferous. Does not this point to some form or forms of 
the A. stolonifera group rather than to A. tenuis Sibth.? 
The third reference in Species Plantarum is to “Agrostis panicula 
tenuissima, FI. Lapp. 45.” (19, pp. 26-27). What this really is, is some- 
what of a mystery. Smith (39, p. 54) describes and figures as A. capillaris 
L. a specimen which he emphatically asserts is the very same as Lin- 
naeus describes in Flora Lapponica. At the same time he carefully notes 
that the specimen in question is without locality and that, up to this time, 
the species which it represents has not again been found by other botanists, 
although Linnaeus says that it is common in the mountains of Lapland. 
Indeed, no Agrostis of the type figured as A. capillaris L. by Smith has up 
to the present time been found anywhere in Scandinavia. If Smith is 
correct in what he says about his figure of A. capillaris L. being drawn 
translation from the German, 
the italics are mine. 
