195 



VULPIA AMBIGUA, Le Gall, AND T'. CILIATA, Link. 

 By Feederick Townsend. 



I HAVE had in my herbarium ever since June, 1846, some 

 specimens of a Vulpia, which I gathered in Suffolk and labelled 

 at the time Festuca sciuroides. When Mr. A. G. More discovered 

 Vulpia amhigua, Le Gall, in the Isle of AVight, and described the 

 plant in 1861 in the ' Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnaean 

 Society' (vol. v., pp. 189-192), it struck me that my plants from 

 Suffolk appeared very similar ; but not then having time for 

 closer investigation, I did no more than transfer my specimens to 

 the species-sheet devoted to Vulpia amhigua. 



Li 1872 I found, in the neighbourhood of Cannes, several 

 plants which I suspected to be a variety of a well-known and 

 long recognised species — Vulpia ciliata, Link; and I named my 

 specimens V. ciliata var. glabra. On placing these in my her- 

 barium, their similarity to V. amhigua so forcibly impressed me 

 that I put them with the latter species, and there they have 

 lain until a few days ago, when I was reminded of then* 

 existence by the fact that V. amhigua now stands out as the only 

 Phanerogam in the Isle of Wight which is not also found on 

 the mainland ; the following species, enumerated by Mr. A. G. 

 More in 1861 (in his Supplement to 'Flora Vectensis'), viz., 

 Calamintha sifivatica, Arum italicum, Matthiola incana, Callitriche 

 ohtusangula, and Festuca amhigua, as peculiar to the Island, having, 

 with the exception of the last, been since discovered on the 

 mainland. I have now carefully examined my Suffolk specimens, 

 and have come to the conclusion that they are identical with 

 the Isle of Wight plant and with my F. ciliata var. glabra from 

 Cannes. 



Mr. J. Lloyd, in his ' Flore de 1' Quest,' places V. amhigua as 

 a var. of V. pseudom.yurus, and alludes to it under this species in 

 the following terms : — " Varie a valve inferieure de la glume tres- 

 courte et sur les bord de la mer a valve superieure obtuse 

 {F. amhigua, Le Gall)." 'Flore de I'Ouest de la France,' ed. iii. 

 p. 371 ; but Le Gall himself, on the other hand, considered his 

 plant as more nearly allied to V. ciliata, and was disposed to refer 

 it to that species as a non-ciliated variety. 



I have in my herbarium one specimen, from Cannes, with 

 many culms to all appearance springing from one and the same 

 root ; but several of the culms bear panicles with a glabrous rachis 

 and non-ciliated pales, while other culms have a villous rachis and 

 ciliated pales. It is j)C)ssible, certainly, that there may be two 

 plants the roots of which are intermingled, but I cannot separate 

 them, even after soaking in boiling water ; and if there he two 

 plants, I can detect no difference in them except in the presence 

 or absence of villosity and hairs. The amount of villosity certainly 

 varies in the type V. ciliata ; and I am led to conclude also that 

 the species varies in having the pales ciliated or non-ciliated. 



With the view of comparing the four nearly allied species, 



