BRITISH OAKS 5 
QUERCUS INTERMEDIA D. Don. 
It is necessary to consider the claims of Q. intermedia D. Don. 
Many British botanists (e.g., Druce, 1908) and foresters (e. J» 
Henry, 1907) do not recognize the validity of this neh ge nor is 
it recognized Fit Continental botanists. The combined c atin 
ascribed by Don (in Leighton’s Flora of Shropshire, 1841) to 
Q. snetaretsitic are insufficient to distinguish it from Q. sais ors. 
So confused indeed are Don’s descriptions of the British Oaks 
that if his Q. intermedia be regarded as valid, the plant Q. sessili- 
flora itself has no existence in fact. Again, British field botanists 
least, of these names (Q. intermedia Boenn. in eeeeenes FI. 
Germ. Excurs. i, 177, 1830-2) is earlier than that of D 
There ibs beso’ to be no type-specimens of Hoe s in exist- 
ence; and hence Leighton’s specimens named Q. intermedia by 
Don become virtually types. Such specimens exist in the Univer- 
sity Herbar at Cambridge, as well as others so named by 
Leighton Hitnself. and all these I should without hesitation refer 
to Q. sessiliflora. Several, in fact, were so named by Leighton in 
the first nee and altered later to Q. intermedia. In all these 
cases, Leighton’s earlier determinations were correct. A specimen 
from Leighton in a British Museum Herbarium, named by him 
The eae of Q. i rmedia D. Don a Fl. Shropsh. is 
taken from a letter eta zi Don to Lei ight on. Bret She 
vations and experiments or: Bait ele to settle this question in a 
satisfactory manner. In the meantime, I consider your Ness- 
what is termed the Durmast , and consequently Smith's 
var. B of Q. sesstliflora. As it possesses characteristics inter- 
mislints between the other two, the specific name imterm aa ma 
intermediate nature. 
sederipts in sd first seven editions of his Manual, followed 
Don’s deser n an abbreviated form, but in the eighth edition 
