57 



NOTES ON BEITISH PLANTS. 

 By C. E. Moss, D.Sc, F.L.S. 



I. SaGINA SAGINOiiDES. 



This species has come into some prominence recently owing 

 to a discovery — or perhaps I should say a rediscovery — on Ben 

 Lawers by the members of the International Phytogeographical 

 Excm^sion, led by Mr. A. G. Tansley, in August, 1911. The 

 particular Sagina which was then found and discussed has since 

 been named S. scotica by one of the members of the party (Mr. 

 G. C. Druce in Bot. Exch. Club. Brit. Eep. for 1911, iii. 14, 1912), 

 and regarded as a hybrid of S. in-ocumhens and S. sagino'ides by two 

 other members of the party (Dr. C. H. Ostenfeld in New. Phyt. 

 xi. 117, 1912 ; Professor C. A. M. Lindman in Bot. Not. 267, 

 1913). So far as I understand the position of Ostenfeld and 

 Lindman, these botanists regard the plant as a fixed and sterile 

 hybrid, which originated long ago, and which has since continued 

 to reproduce and spread itself by vegetative means. My own 

 view of the plant is that it is a variety of S. sagino'ides. 



If Druce (in Journ. Bot. 1913, 91) is correct in identifying a 

 specimen of Kobert Brown's as belonging to the disputed plant, 

 then this is the earliest specimen known. I am not, however, 

 very happy with regard to this determination. The specimen 

 clearly belongs to the species S. sagino'ides, as I regard it ; but 

 Brown describes his plant as " decandris " and " pentagynis " ; 

 and one of the capsules of the specimen is nearly twice as long as 

 the calyx. However, Druce is doubtless able to identify S. scotica. 

 There is no date or locahty on Brown's label ; but another speci- 

 men of *S'. sagino'ides on the same sheet was collected by Brown 

 on Ben Lawers in 1794. The label of the plant mentioned by 

 Druce contains a MS. description and a MS. name ; and the latter 

 is, in my opinion, a MS. synonym of S. sagino'ides. 



I am assured that the disputed plant has for many years been 

 definitely known to many Scottish botanists, and that these did 

 not regard it as sufficiently different from S. sagino'ides to merit a 

 special name. 



Lindman [op. cit.) gives some interesting details as to the 

 history of the disputed plant in Scandinavia ; and the present 

 note emphasises the fact that it was clearly known to Eeichenbach 

 over seventy years ago, and known more or less clearly to several 

 other Central European botanists in more recent years. It is not 

 a rare plant in herbaria, where it is sometimes named S. ^;?-o- 

 cumhens, but usually S. sagino'ides. 



Whilst the disputed Sagina was being discussed on Ben 

 Lawers by the members of the International Phytogeographical 

 Excursion, I dug up two sods of the plant. One of these I 

 forwarded to Mr. E. W. Hunnybun, who drew the specimen for 

 volume iii. of the Gamhvidgc British Flora; and the other I 

 forwarded to Cambridge to be grown in my garden. Here it has 

 flourished; and I have also been fortunate in successfully growing 



Journal op Botany. — Vol. 52. [March, 1914.] f 



