165 



FURTHER NOTES ON HIERACIA NEW TO BRITAIN. 



By Frederick J. H anbury, F.L.S. 



(Continued from p. 134.) 



Among the Hieracia collected since 1885, and especially during 

 the last three years, many yet remain, which, after consultation 

 with the best authorities and careful inspection of such herbaria as 

 have been available to me, I have been unable to identify as 

 previously recorded species. I will now endeavour to describe in 

 as few words as possible, and under the names by which I propose 

 to designate them, the more important of these forms. I do not 

 here commit myself to a definite sequence, the framing of a 

 systematic list remaining over for a future occasion, neither can 

 1 venture to hope that the following descriptions of our new forms 

 will entirely exhaust the category, though I believe they will be 

 found to cover most of the ground. There can be no doubt that 

 the British Hawkweed Flora is very rich, and though the present 

 list of additions may seem long, yet, when compared with the 

 number of species that have been recently described in Scandinavia, 

 it will still be found to be of very modest proportions. My aim 

 throughout has been to restrict it to as small a compass as possible, 

 without knowingly slurring over or amalgamating forms that are 

 obviously distinct. When all is done, there will ever remain a 

 number of isolated specimens which, from geological, climatic, or 

 local influences, are so modified as to defy all attempts at exact 

 definition. Viewing the metamorphoses a single living plant will 

 undergo when removed first from its native mountain ledge to the 

 heavy soil and low elevation of a London garden, and then perhaps 

 to one of the light sandy gardens of Surrey or Hampshire, meta- 

 morphoses which, had we not the complete life-history of the plant, 

 would frequently render it entirely unrecognisable, it is impossible 

 but that such a residuum of undefined forms should always remain. 

 To attempt an exact definition of all these is to court contempt for 

 critical botany generally, by making it impossible, and to furnish 

 an excuse to those who, unwilling to devote time and attention to 

 studying the details of form and peculiarities of habit of many a 

 well-defined species, excuse themselves from endeavouring to master 

 the subject by pointing to the ridiculous lengths to which certain 

 enthusiasts have gone. To avoid either extreme should be the aim 

 of critical botany, though the via media is by far the more difficult 

 path to take, since nothing is easier than to either lump together 

 all forms which bear a general, if superficial, similarity, or to sit 

 down and describe any specimen that seems a little different to 

 anything else, disregarding its affinities with nearly allied forms, 

 and to leave to future generations the thankless task of endeavouring 

 to decipher a hopelessly involved puzzle. 



The following descriptions and notes, though far from complete, 

 will, I hope, sufficiently define and indicate the plants intended, until 

 such time as the several species and varieties here mentioned can be 

 more fully treated in my Monograph now in course of publication. 



