1963] 



TAXONOMY OF LUZULA SUBGENUS PTERODES 



295 



LANDS: Geesteranus 4- van Hattum (May 21. 1950) (K) ; J. T. Koster (Mav 23. 1936) 

 (GH); Beelaire (May 1. 1898) (K) . NORWAY: 0. Anderson (May 1, 1902) (US), (May 26, 

 1904) (US) ; P. E. Fridtz 1411 (GH) ; A. S. Pease (July 9, 1930) (GH) ; 8. K. Selland (July 

 3, 1902) (GH). POLAND: Pautouski 79 (GH, K) ; A. Bender (May 12. 1882) (GH) : T. 

 Symonowiczdicna 488 (S) : J. Trela (April 29, 1930) (US). ROMANIA: fir. Bujorean 935 

 (GH, K, US). RUSSIA (western): H. W. Arnell (1876) (S) ; M. Brenner (June 17. 1876) 

 (S); E. E. X. Busch (Aug. 18, 1928) (S) ; Dan* 33013 (K) : 5. J. Enander (July 12, 1913) 

 (S) ; O. E. Holmberg 2013 (S) : E. Lundstrom 320 (S) ; 8. Mameev 673 (K, US) ; G. Pahnsch 

 (May 2, 1874) (S) ; E. Starcas 6082 (S) ; K. Star? 2165 (S) : V. Transchel (May 9. 1920) 

 (S) ; D. Zerow (May 19, 1929) (S), 35 (S). SCOTLAND: A. SomerviUe 1550 (K). SWEDEN: 

 F. Ahlberg (June, 1870) (GH): E. T. Frir.s (May. 1906) (GH), (May 28. 1928) (K): B. 

 Lindner (April, 1909) (GH) ; G. Samuelsson 482 *(K) ; Simosson 4- Tidestrom 14672 (US). 

 SWITZERLAND: A. S. Pease 9332 (GH), 9556 (GH). 



Hybrids. The following naturally occurring hybrids have been reported. 



L. pilosa x L. forsteri — discussed under L. forsieri. 

 L. pilosa X L. luzulina — discussed under L. luzulina. 



L. pilosa X L. silvatico — This hybrid was mentioned by Buchenau (1906), 

 and later named L. X Buchenaui by Fournier (1935). During this study 

 no specimens were found that would indicate that hybridization was 

 taking place between these two taxa. 



L. pilosa X L. nemorosa — This hybrid was reported as occurring naturally 

 by Domin (1935) who gave it the formal name Luzula cehica. In the 

 present, study no specimens were found that appeared to be hybrids 

 between these two species. 



Luzula pilosa is a wide ranging species found throughout northern Europe 

 ( Fig. 5). This taxon is very constant in its morphological characteristics and 

 it did not seem feasible to distinguish varieties or subspecies. However, some 

 variation does exist. Some of the specimens from the northern part of its range 

 tend to have rhizomes that are 2-3 cm long, while these are lacking in the south- 

 ern plants. However, this character was highly variable, and numerous plants 

 were caespitose. lacking rhizomes altogether. Moreover, some plants were found 

 that had simple inflorescences, but unlike L. acuminata, this trait is not con- 

 stant and cannot be correlated with geographic distribution. 



This taxon is easily distinguished from the two other European species Lu- 

 zula forsteri and L. luzulina) and is morphologically more similar to the North 

 American species L. acuminata. It can readily be distinguished from this latter 

 species, however, by its caespitose habit, the darker color and harder texture of 

 the perianth segments, and the subtruncate to obtuse capsule tip. 



The nomenclature of Luzula pilosa is quite complicated, and there are nu- 

 merous synonyms in the literature. The species was first described by Linnaeus 

 (1753) as J uncus pilosus. and later by Reichard (1788) under the name J uncus 

 uernalis. This latter name was taken up by most subsequent authors when re- 

 ferring to plants of this species. Most of the synonyms represent the transfer 

 of these two specific epithets ( pilosa and vernalis) to other generic names that 

 are now considered synonyms of the genus Luzula. DeCandolle in Lamarck and 

 DeCandolle (1805), in the original description of the genus Luzula used the 

 specific epithet vernalis for this species, but mistakenly considered Ehrhart 

 (1791) as the author of the name, as did Fourreau (1869) when he transferred 

 this specific epithet to the genus Xemorinia. Three other names also have been 

 used for this species (J uncus luzula. J. nemorosus and L. nemorosa ) and are 

 here considered as synonyms of L. pilosa. Four varieties also have been desig- 



