49 
On the Hieracia of North Yorkshire and Teesdale. By Joun 
G. Baker. 
““Neque de veritate nature in Hieraciis extricandis desperemus, quamvis arduus 
sit labor : modo omnia prejudicia mittamus, v. c. studium species sive contrahendi 
sive multiplicandi, assidui formas in natura typicas inquirentes.”—F ries, Symb. ad 
Mistoriam Hieraciorum, pref. p. 1. 
On all hands it is admitted that our British Mieracia are at 
present involved in a very considerable degree of confusion. The 
wide discrepancies which exist between the views and conclusions 
of the principal authors who have during the last few years at- 
tempted to describe and classify the species which represent the 
genus in the flora of this country, have already been pointed out 
and commented upon im the ‘ Phytologist’ (vide vol. iv. p. 177) ; 
and in the most recently published list of British plants, the 
fourth edition of the Catalogue of the London Botanical Society, 
no less than eighteen species (or supposed species) which are 
either “not distinctly ascertained to occur in Britain, or am- 
biguous otherwise,” are enumerated. When such is the state of 
things, it is no wonder that many of our botanists, to quote the 
words of the most illustrious exponent of the genus, feel almost 
disposed to regard it as “ vague and anomalous.’”’* And that we 
find the author of the ‘ Cybele,’ when desirous of tracing out and 
treating upon the distribution of our British Hieracia (vol. ii. 
page 68), complaining that “this genus, like its geographically 
natural associate, Saliv, has been rendered botanically odious by 
books.” 
The fact of the matter is, that a genus like Hieracium, where 
the characters of the species are susceptible of such a wide range 
of modification and variation under the influence of external cir- 
cumstances, requires imperatively to be studied closely in the 
field, and not alone or principally in the closet. “ Characteres,”’ 
says Fries, “nullo modo sunt specierum criteria, tantum ad 
species discernendas adminicula.”’ Characters are marks by 
which species may be known from one another, but their value 
may be tested only by their permanence.t+ For a long period our 
* “Frustraneum me suscepisse opus multi forsan judicent, fingentes hoc genus 
. prorsus esse vagum, anomalum, vel, ut ita dicam, irrationale, guale tamen non na- 
ture, sed auctorum culpd factum est.’—Fries, Symb. loc. cit. supra. 
+ The reviewer (Phyt. iv. 177) to whose remarks allusion has been made above, 
would seem, from the following passage, to have appreciated differently the bearing 
WNL, VOEe I, tigate 
