137 



NOTES UPON TEESDALE PLANTS. 

 By C. E. Salmon, F.L.S. 



The following notes have been put together mainly for the 

 purpose of comparing the condition of the more uncommon Tees- 

 dale plants in 1892, an ordinary English season ("three fine clays 

 and a thunderstorm "), and in the phenomenally hot and dry 

 summer of 1911. 



The first visit was from June llth-20th, when my brother and 

 I had the advantage of the company of Messrs. J. B. and A. J. 

 Crosfield, without whose guidance many of the " Teesdalians " 

 would have been missed ; the second trip was from July 4th-20th, 

 in the company of Dr. A. H. Fardon. 



It will be seen that, although the conditions may be pleasant 

 for botanizing, a hot dry season by no means produces such a 

 good display of mountain or rock plants as a normal summer. 

 The Globe-flower had suffered extremely ; a meadow near High 

 Force, yellow with the blossoms in 1892, did not show a single 

 flower or fruiting-spike in 1911. 



D. = Durham, v.-c. 66 ; W. = Westmoreland, v.-c. 69. All 

 the v.-c. 64 records were noted in 1911. Supposed new records 

 have an asterisk. 



The Eev. E. S. Marshall, Eev. E. F. Linton, Messrs. H. and J. 

 Groves {Characece), and Mr. A. Bennett have kindly helped me in 

 naming critical forms. 



Thalictrum minus L. Limestone W. of Selside, v.-c. 64. 



Meconopsis cambrica Vig. Pot hole, near Selside, v.-c. 64. 



Draha incana L. Forest-in-Teesdale and limestone ridge near 

 Ettersgill Beck, D., 1911. 



Cochlearia alpina Wats. By Harwood Beck, D., 1911. Lime- 

 stone hills above Brough, W., 1911. 



Helianthevmm canum Baumg, var. vineale (Pers.). Flowering 

 in profusion in its well-known locality in 1892 ; in 1911 not 

 putting up nearly so many blossoming shoots. The Teesdale 

 plant seems to have leaves much more glabrous above than those 

 of the Great Orme's Head form, indeed some of them are quite 

 hairless. Mr. Williams (Prod. Fl. Brit, pars x, 1912, 573) fails to 

 distinguish vineale on "comparing examples from Clare with 

 examples from the Welsh coast," but, as far as the Teesdale plant 

 is concerned (I do not know the Irish), it seems worth separating 

 at least as a " forma." 



Polygala amara L. In fair quantity in 1892 and 1911 ; the 

 blue-flowered plant seen in 1911 does not grow intermixed, 

 apparently, with the more frequent (as regards Teesdale) pink 

 form. J. D. Hooker had evidently not seen the blue form in 

 Teesdale; he says (Stud. Fl. 1884, 51): "The Teesdale form 

 (P. uliginosa Fries) is rather more fleshy and has rosy flowers ; 

 the Kent form (P. austriaca Crantz) is blue-flowered. I find no 

 difference between their capsules. It is certainly the P. amara of 

 Linn. Herb." 



Journal of Botany. — Vol. 52. [June, 1914.] m 



