A REVISION OF KALM’S HERBARIUM IN UPSALA 
2 I 
* Gentian a qtiinquefolia L. One specimen, correctly determined by Thunb. Kalm 
has written the number »593». 
*Phlox maculata L. Of this species there is one specimen. Kalm has determined 
it correctly, and also written »Phlox caule simplici; foliis oppositis glabris, inferioribus 
linearibus, superioribus ovato-lanceolatis. Flor. Canad. mss.» The linear form of the lower 
leaves is not mentioned by Linn. 
*Hydrophylhim canadense L. Syst. X 1759. One specimen, on which Kalm has 
written »Hydrophyllum foliis palmatis. Flor. Canad. mss.», and Thunb. the Linnean name. 
Linn, did not mention from whose specimens he described this new species; perhaps it was 
from Kalm’s. 
*Pedicularis canadensis L. There is one specimen of this. Kalm has written »P. 
caule simplici, floribus capitatis; foliis pinnatifidis crenulatis. Gron. flor. virg. 68.», and 
Thunb. the Linnean name with a query. Linn, has not quoted Gron:s synonym (nor 
another, which in my opinion indicates this species, viz., Pedic. mariana etc. Pluk. Mant., 
p. 147, Phytogr. tab. 437, fig. 3). 
Veronica marilandica LlNN. Sp. pi. 1753, from Gron. FI. virg. 1739, and with the 
habitat »in Virginia». Linn, placed it immediately after V. peregrina, w r hich he knew only 
as a European plant. Gronovius in FI. virg. 1762, p. 2 (I have not seen the 1st ed. ot 
1739) had based his species on »Veronica humilis etc. Clayt. n. 226», but on p. 19 he says 
under Polypremum: »An Oldenlandiae affinis? antehac sub num. 226. missa, et Veronica hu¬ 
milis inscripta: . . . Clayt. n. 768.» Clayton then was of the opinion that his n. 226 and 
n. 768 were the same plant, but Linn., who had seen Clayton’s collections and perhaps 
had got specimens of these numbers from Gron., evidently had another view, for in Sp. pi. 
1 753 he treated V. marilandica and Polypremum procumbens as quite different plants. It is 
not likely that Linn, should have taken Polypremum for a Veronica. Murray in Comment. 
Soc. R. Scient. Gotting. V 1783, p. 11, tab. Ill, described a plant which had appeared in 
the botan. garden of Goettingen, as V. marilandica I,. It is evidently a form of V. peregrina 
with decumbent branches. Modern writers, however, put V. marilandica L. as a synonym 
under Polypremum procumbens, probably basing their opinion on the above quoted passage 
in Gron. FI. virg. — In Kalm’s collection there is a specimen which he has identified 
with V. marilandica L. It is evidently V. pei'egrina L. I think that LlNN. and Kalm 
believed that American specimens of V. peregrina formed a distinct species and called them 
indiscriminately V. marilandica. 
*Galium tinctorium L. There is one specimen on which Kalm has written: »Tisa- 
voyanne rouge by the French. With the root of this plant the Savages apply to several 
objects the excellent red colour which can hardly ever be changed by the sun». Thunb. 
has written »G. palustre». The specimen is young and has only one poor inflorescence, but 
it seems to agree best with G. tinctorium L. 
*{Galium tnfidum L.) In my opinion the specimen so determined by Kalm belongs 
to G. palustre L. 
In Kalm’s collection in Upsala there are also specimens of some 
species which are not mentioned in LlNNEAUS’ writings. Either he has 
not seen these specimens, or he has examined them only superficially 
and believed that they belonged to other species known to him. Al¬ 
though these specimens are of little value to science, I will enumerate 
here such of them as I have been able to identify. This list may at 
least contribute to a proper estimation of Kalm’s merits as a collector 
of plants. 
