115 
from the very same specimen which Linnaeus originally described in Flora 
Lapponica, then the latter species might very well not be a Scandinavian 
plant at all. Indeed, Grisebach, in Ledebour (17 a, p. 439), places “A. 
capillaris L. herb. (Sm. ic. rar. 3, t. 54 )” in Section Airagrostis which 
essentially is South European. This section, as defined by Ascherson and 
Graebner (1, p. 192), is composed of annual species. Smith (1. c.) is 
doubtful whether what he describes as A. capillaris L. is an annual grass 
or not, but Sinclair (38, p. 61) definitely states that it is. 
Whatever the identity of the plant described in FI. Lapp, and cited 
under A. capillaris in Sp. PL, it is obvious that it cannot be the same as 
the plants of Royen and Dalibard which are also cited under A. capillaris 
in Sp. PL, as the latter have contracted, not at all capillary panicle. Further- 
more, if, as Smith asserts, his A. capillaris is drawn and described from the 
original A. panicula tenuissima of FI. Lapp., then the latter, having smooth 
empty glumes, cannot be identical with A. capillaris L. of Sp. PL which 
has hispidulous glumes. Finally, Royen’s and Dalibard’s plants, having 
contracted panicle, do not agree with A. capillaris L. of Sp. PL which has 
an open, capillary panicle. For the same reasons it appears that neither 
the plant of FL Lapp, nor Royen’s and Dalibard’s plants cited under 
A. capillaris in Sp. PL can be identified with A. tenuis Sibth. However, 
if the citations are disregarded, it might be argued that the diagnosis of 
A. capillaris L., as given in Sp. PL, applies to A. tenuis Sibth., and that, 
therefore, the name A. capillaris L. should be retained. But whether the 
diagnosis of A. capillaris L. is applicable to A. tenuis Sibth. or not, is not 
the real point. The point is: Was the description of A. capillaris L. in 
Sp. PL actually based on the plant known as A, tenuis Sibth. If it was, 
and only then, it might be claimed that, notwithstanding the necessity of 
excluding the citations, and notwithstanding the discrepancies between 
the latter, the name A. capillaris L. should be retained in the sense of A. 
tenuis Sibth. But there is, in the writer's opinion, room for the suspicion 
that what is known as A. tenuis Sibth. may not at all have been the basis 
of Linnaei description of A . capillaris. Perhaps the latter originated as 
follows : 
Linnaeus originally described a species with capillary panicle in Flora 
Lapponica, 1737. In 1740, Royen, in Florae Leydensis Prodromus, described 
an “Agrostis panicula compressa calycibus subulatis aequalibus hispidius- 
culis coloratis.” This was confused by Linnaeus with his species in Flora 
Lapponica. When, in 1753, he described A. capillaris in Species Plant- 
arum, he, therefore, copied Royen's diagnosis for that species, but, in order 
to suit the description to the plant previously diagnosed in Flora Lap- 
ponica, he altered it so as to read “Agrostis panicula capillari patente 
” instead of “Agrostis panicula compressa ” 
Such an origin of the description in Species Plantarum readily explains 
the discrepancies between the description of A. capillaris and that of 
Royen’s plant cited as a synonym, on the one hand, and also the citation 
of both Royen’s plant and that of Flora Lapponica, two obviously different 
species, under A. capillaris, on the other. If the description of the latter 
thus is a composite one, based partly on Royen’s plant with a contracted 
panicle and partly on the plant of Flora Lapponica with a capillary one, 
neither of which is identical with A. tenuis Sibth., it follows that the latter 
cannot be identified with A. capillaris L. That Linnaeus really had not 
the plant called A. tenuis Sibth. in mind when he penned the diagnosis of 
