GO 



THF. JOTTKNAL OF lioTAXV 



Fn 1800 a distinct species of this group was described by Will- 

 denow in Spec. Plant, ed. 5, p. 1564, as //. repem, with a diagnosis 

 • II. scapo ramoso multifloro nudo piloso, foliis oblongis obtusiuscalis 

 integernmis, stolonibus repentibus," the Bowers being stated te be 

 "saturate flavi." This plant is reduced to a variety repens of 

 //. aurantiacum by Froelich in De Candolle's Prodromus, vii. p. 204 

 (1838), but is made a synonym ? of R. prussicum (&. collinumx 

 Pilosella) by Naegeli and Peter (I.e. p. H7S). Through the kind- 

 ness of Prof. .Engler I have been able to see the type-specimen in 

 Willdenow's herbarium, no. 14663. This has the facies of a narrow- 

 leaved II. aurantiacum, but when carefully examined it is found to 

 lack both the red colouring of the ligules and the black involucral 

 hairs characteristic of that species, and 1 think it is probably a 

 hybrid such as Naegeli and Peter suggest, although the long pilose 

 hairs of the stem seem to show the influence of //. aurantiacum. 

 Willdenow's name cannot therefore be adopted to represent Naeo-eli 

 and Peter's narrow-leaved type. 



In works subsequent to De Candolle's Prodromus I have been 

 unable to find this narrow-leaved rampant plant distinguished either 

 as a species or a variety, except by Naegeli and Peter, by whom it is 

 treated as the true H. aurantiacum L., sensu stricto. ' It has been 

 shown at length that this name really belongs to the broad-leaved 

 garden-form, and as it is intended, for reasons already explained, to 

 deal with the two plants as distinct species, a new "name for this 

 narrow-leaved form is required. It is therefore proposed to rename 

 it H. brunneo-croceum in allusion to the colour of its flowers. 



In thus dividing this group of hawkvveeds into two species, I am 

 fully aware that while this treatment should serve readily to dis- 

 tinguish the two plants known in Britain, it may not be of equal use 

 in elucidating the relationships of the various wi'ld Continental forms. 

 with which I am unacquainted in nature, and of which I have 

 examined only the limited collections in Herb. Mus. Brit, and 

 (partially) at Kew. But the forms described by Naegeli and Peter 

 seem largely divisible into two groups, whereof one may be dis- 

 tinguished by a predominance of underground stolons and a tendency 

 to broad, elliptic foliage, while the other set has more pronounce.!, 

 leafy stolons and narrower, oblong leaves; and I think that a lar^e 

 proportion of these forms can thus be naturally associated with the 

 two species recognized in this paper. 



I may add that I have not traced the origin of the narrow-leaved 

 form as an inhabitant of British gardens. I have reason to believe 

 that the particular plants I knew'as a child were brought with Cm- 

 taurea Montana from Western Switzerland in the early seventies, 

 but of this I am not certain. The form being widely' distributed^ 

 however,_it is not unlikely that it was introduced at different times 

 from various habitats and then disseminated bv crardeners owino- to 

 its very easy propagation. Examples from different localities some- 

 times show minor differences that may be derived from the wild 

 stocks. 



The two species may be diagnosed thus : — 



Hteractum aiteantiacum L. Sp. PI. SOI (1753); Smith, En- 

 Bot. no. 1469 (1805); Syme, Eng. Bot. ed. 3, v. 166 (1866^- 



