NOTES UPON TEESDALE PLANTS 139 



such an anomaly as this, unless there were very decided evidence 

 in its favour." 



As regards the first point, I think S. spatliulcBfolius (at least 

 as far as the Holyhead and Westmoreland plants are concerned) 

 may be best distinguished by being a larger plant in all respects 

 (though I admit size alone is a poor character), having a more 

 arachnoid appearance {campestris is sometimes nearly glabrous), 

 shorter pappus, and especially by its larger number of heads and 

 the shape of its leaves. These have on the stem peculiar broad- 

 based petioles, whilst the root-leaves are often long-petioled 

 (longer than the blade), with their base much more truncate than 

 in cainjjestris. As to the second point, it may be noted that 

 recent French botanists (Coste, Eouy, &c.) admit the two plants 

 as inhabitants of their country, although apparently cavipestris 

 is decidedly the scarcer. 



The two plants would bear further investigation, and it is 

 worth noting that Hooker (Stud. Fl. 1884, p. 220) considers our 

 larger plant to be S. campestris DC. var. maritima Syme (S. 

 spathulafolius Bab. non DC). Syme (Eng. Bot. ed. 3, v. p. 90, 

 1866) divided S. campestris as follows : — " a. genuina. Kadical 

 leaves entire or slightly toothed. Stem 3 inches to 1 foot high. 

 fi. maritima. Eadical leaves generally with numerous broad teeth. 

 Stem 1 foot high. Anthodes more numerous and larger than 

 in var. a." But he goes on to say, "Of var. (i I have seen no 

 specimens." 



Eosettes gathered in 1911, which flowered in 1913, promise to 

 flower again this season, although some have died; Mr. Williams 

 (Prod. Fl. Brit. i. 1901, 40) says "biennis"; most Continental 

 floras give it a perennial habit. It may really be a biennial, whilst 

 individuals in exceptional circumstances remain on and flourish 

 for two or three more seasons. 



Owing to an error as regards county in Babington's ac- 

 count of this plant in Journ. Bot. 1882, p. 35, Yorkshire has been 

 credited with possessing the locality instead of Westmoreland, 

 and this has not, I believe, been corrected until the present 

 note. 



Hieracium anglicum Fr. and var. hrigantum F. J. H. Lime- 

 stone hills above Brough, W., 1911. The latter plant was ob- 

 served in 1892, and reported under another name in Journ. Bot. 

 1893, p. 219, which thus needs correcting. 



'■■H. lasioplmjllum Koch. Falcon Glints, D., 1892. Determined 

 by A. Ley. 



H. stenolepis Lindeb. var. suh-hritannicum Ley. Limestone 

 scars E. of Ingleborough Cave, v.-c. 64. 



H. sylvaticum Gouan var. ■•'tricolor W. E. L. Limestone 

 ridges above Brough, W., 1892. 



Taraxacum erythrospermum Andrz. Limestone near Etters- 

 gill Beck, D., 1911. 



T. p)ahistre DC. var. ■■'•runcinato-hastatttvi Lamotte (E. & F.). 

 Above High Force Hotel towards Ettersgill Common, D., 1911 

 {fide J. W. White & G. Bucknall). 



M 2 



