Rit (Vísindafélag Íslendinga) - 01.08.1930, Qupperneq 9

9
how many species there are in the higher sfations. At tirst
sight one might be led to expect that most species would
grow on the lowland, but it isn’t so here. Possibly this may,
to a certain extent, be caused by the fact that here the forest
is higher, and therefore shadier. Circling station 3 is also on
forestland, close to a swamp, but there is no heatherland
near, and several species of heather plants, that are to be
found in the higher sfations, are lacking here.
It is certain, that the copsewood is a good protection for
the vegetation, and the variation of the species is greater in
the copsewood than outside it on the bare land; this is best
seen in the upper part of the montain slope.
Unfortunately, I had no time to circle the vegetation in the
forest-clearances, where it seemed to be an intermediate form
between the heather-vegatation in the slopes, and the forest-
sward-vegetation itself. But in some places, especially in
hollows, were groups of herbacous plants.
In the vegetation-carpet of the forest, the Gramineæ was
most prominent, of which Agrostis tenuis, Anthoxanthum
odoratum, Festuca rubra and F. ovina were in greatest
quantities. Of plants may be mentioned Polygonum viviparum,
Galium boreale and G. Normanni. Of arbuscular plants (Ch)
were Uaccinium uliginosum and Empetrum nigrum, else there
is not much of Ch, in 3 the Salix species were prefty frequent,
especially S. phplicifolia; in some places, on the outskirts of
the birch-copses, it formed pretty shrubs.
On the whole, I think that the forest or coppice vegetation
near Ásólfsstaðir can be considered a typical example of Ice-
landic forest vegetation, although Vaccinium myrtillus, Arcto-
staphylus uva-ursi, Calluna rulgaris and perhaps a few other
plants, which often belong to forest vegetation, are laeking.
Dr. H. M. H. divides Icelandic vegetation into two main
groups, A-group, Northern (Arctic) plants, and E-group,
Southern European plants. The A-group is split up into 3
minor groups, and the E-group into 4. I also wanted to see
how the groups agreed here compared with Norðtunga. The
result was that the E-group was predominant, and with similar
percentage. There is, indeed, some difference in the sub-