126 A NOTE ON FRAGARIA. 



plant I have provisionally called F. herclieriemis be of hybrid origin 

 or a variety of F. vesca, or a subspecies bearing the same relation to 

 F. vesca as F. dumetorum does to F. collina. Probably this plant 

 is occasionally reported as F. elatioi\'' 



It will be observed that no less than five views are suggested 

 as to the plant, which first appeared in print in 1895. It stands 

 first as a species, then as a doubtful hybrid, then as possibly an 

 extreme form of F. vesca, then as a possible variety of that species, 

 and lastly as a possible subspecies. When Mr. Druce sent it to 

 the Exchange Club, with a note which is embodied in the above 

 extract,''' Mr. W. R. Linton remarked *' Cultivation alongside of 

 type vesca would show if it possesses features justifying its taking 

 position as a variety or species"; Mr. Druce has adopted this 

 suggestion, but seems to have taken no steps to carry it out. 



It is difficult to see any justification for publishing the plant as a 

 species, even if we ignore the specimens and base our conclusions 

 upon Mr. Druce's account of it. He does not tell us that he has 

 compared it with the series of specimens to be found in our public 

 or private herbaria, notably with the very interesting series of 

 forms from Duchesne in the Linnean Herbarium. There is no 

 diagnosis of the plant beyond such as can be deduced from certain 

 comparative and vague statements ; and when we look into these, 

 they come to very little. Mr. Druce says it has the *'facies" of 

 dumetorum, but, he adds, " F. dumetorum belongs to the group of 

 F. collina,'' whereas his plant clearly goes with vesca in the im- 

 portant character afforded by the calyx ; he might also have noted 

 that the size of the flowers in no way suggests any collina form. 

 " The calyx somewhat resembles F. chiloensis''; Mr. E. G. Baker, 

 who has examined the plants with me, agrees in finding no such 

 resemblance, nor can we see in what respect the calyx differs from 

 that of typical vesca. The leaves certainly are large — one of them 

 is larger than any vesca we have seen ; but we cannot see that they 

 differ in colour, in toothing, or in texture, from numerous examples 

 of vesca; and the locality — "a ditch bordering a plantation" 

 (Bot. Exch. Club Report, p. 445) — seems sufficient to us to account for 

 the unusual luxuriance of the specimens in all respects. Mr. Druce 

 says " it may be distinguished from F. chiloensishy its much smaller 

 flowers and fruits" ; it would be simpler to say that the flowers and 

 fruits are those of typical vesca, for we cannot see the faintest sug- 

 gestion of chiloensis in anything except the size of one or two of the 

 leaves. Nor can we agree with Mr. Druce in suspecting that the 

 plant "is occasionally reported as F. elatior'" ; the small flowers 

 would prevent any such confusion. Mr. Linton's statement that 

 he "has seen just the same plant elsewhere" must not be under- 

 stood as supporting Mr. Druce in considering the plant specifically 

 distinct. There can be little doubt that the plant is a luxuriant 

 form of the common wild strawberry, due to its place of growth, 



* He then {I.e. 446) also drew attention to " the long coarser runners " as 

 different from any he had seen in F. vesca, but Mr. Linton in his note disposed 

 of this character, which is not now included in the description. 



