DISTRIBUTION OF FESTUCA RUBRA IN BRITAIN. 327 
would include fallax, barbata and genuina, barbata under his F. dumetorum, 
and glabrous forms of genuina and fallax under his F. duriuscula. The 
latter plant is therefore the more cæspitose, and our conclusion that F. rubra 
is the more obviously stoloniferous is confirmed. 
This explanation is the enly one which gives uniformity to Linnaus’s 
descriptions and herbarium specimens. If we follow Hackel we must 
neglect the evidence of the herbarium sheets and attempt to form a com- 
parison between Hackel’s scarcely tufted, extensively creeping F. dumetorum 
and his F. duriuscula included under F. ovina, which has no stolons whatever. 
The acceptance of Hackel's F. dumetorum as that of Linnæus may account 
for the fact that some authors have regarded F. duriuscula as a more 
extensively creeping form than F. rubra. 
Smith (1798, t. 470) was right when he wrote :—“ The leaves of both 
(i. e. duriuscula and dumetorum) minutely ciliated or downy ; and sometimes 
the outer husk, as well as the calyx, is all over clothed with soft pubescence, 
which makes the character of Linnzeus’s F. dumetorum ; nor can we in his 
own specimens find any other mark than this, which is a variable one. 
Indeed, his specimens of F. duriuseula are some of them downy.” But in 
describing F. rubra in 1809 (t. 2056) he observes that his forms of this grass 
are not really distinct from his F. duriuseula. The latter has a “ tendency to 
a creeping root” and is connected through intermediate stages with F. rubra 
where “that part is indeed prodigiously elongated." Thus also Hooker 
(1821, p. 38) includes F. rubra as a variety of F. duriuscula, distinguished 
by its creeping root, and Syme (1872, p. 145) divides the species /. rubra 
under subsp. I. F. duriuscula “ Linn.” Sm., ceespitose (i. e. fallax) or sub- 
cæspitose (i.e. genuina, vulgaris, ete.), rootstock shortly creeping, stolons 
very short ; and subsp. II. F. arenaria Osbeck, not at all ceespitose, rootstock 
very extensively creeping, stolons long, ete. 
There is also much support among early European authors for our view. 
Leers’s (1789, p. 32) description of F. duriuscula and his figure (2. t. viii.) 
apply to a form of F. rubra. Host’s (1802, pp. 59-60) description and 
figure (t. 83) agree with F. rubra, fallax. De Candolle (1805, pp. 50-51) 
says of F. duriuscula that it “rarely occurs in such compact tufts as 
F. ovina,’ and his F. cinerea var. a (F. dumetorum) is “like F. duriuscula 
except for its hairy glumes,” while F. cinerea var. b (F. arenaria) is “ taller 
with larger spikelets.” Schrader (1806, p. 328) refers his F. duriuscula to 
Host, Smith, and Leers above, and to 7. heterophylla Haenke (F. rubra, 
fallax var. alpestris). His var. a has glabrous spikelets, and var. b with 
pubescent spikelets he refers to F. dumetorum L. Gaudin’s (1811, p. 251) 
F. duriuscula is F. rubra, fallax, as also is that of Fries (1842, p. 6). 
Gaudin's (1828, p. 686) F. dumetorum and that of Schur (1866, p. 793) is 
F. dumetorum L. i 
It appears as though Pollich (1776, p. 101) gave the lead to those 
