10 



YOLANDE HESLOP-HARRISON 



Morphological Comparisons between N. intermedia, N. lutea and N. pumila 



For the purpose of a morphological comparison of N. intermedia with its presumed 

 parents a random collection of 30 flowers has been taken from the Chartners colony. This 

 has been compared with samples of N. lutea from the following twelve localities (L. 1-12): 



1. Royal Canal, nr. Ballycormack, Co. Longford, v.c. H 24. 



2. Loch Bannow, Lanesborough, Co. Longford, v.c. H 24. 



3. Lough Craiggarnore, W. Galway, v.c. H 16. 



4. R. Thames at Cookham, Berkshire, v.c. 22. 



5. Lode near Wicken Fen, Cambridgeshire, v.c. 29. 



6. Lode near R. Ant, Sutton Broad, E. Norfolk, v.c. 27. 



7. Ellesmere, Shropshire, v.c. 40. 



8. Small lake in Tregaron Bog, Cardiganshire, v.c. 46. 



9. Esthwaite Water, N. Lancashire, v.c. 69. 



10. Loughrigg Tarn, Westmorland, v.c. 69. 



11. Grasmere, Westmorland, v.c. 69. 



12. Monkhill Lough, near Carlisle, Cumberland, v.c. 70. 



and of N. pumila from Lochanovie, Easterness, v.c. 96 (P 1), and Shropshire, v.c. 40 

 (P2). 



In Table 1, in which the biometrical data for the three taxa are compared, the N. 

 lutea samples are aggregated so that the information given may be taken to be representative 

 of a general lowland sample of this species. The data for the N. pumila samples are given 

 separately for the floral characters (except for petal length) so that comparison may be 

 made between the population from Lochanovie and the interesting isolated Shropshire 

 colony, both of which are regarded as being typical N. pumila. The Avinlochan colony 

 (N. of Aviemore, Inverness, v.c. 95 — P 3), discussed further below, is possibly itself 

 affected by hybridisation, and the data for it have not been included in the N. pumila 

 aggregate. 



Table 1 



Meristic and size data for floral characters in British Nuphar taxa. For locaUties see text. (All size measure- 

 ments in mm.) 



Taxon 

 sample 



Se; 



Dal 



Pe 



tal 



Carpel 



length 



width 



number 



length 



number 



diameter 



N. pumila agg. 

 (PI + P2) 

 PI 

 P2 



P3(Avinlochan) 

 N. intermedia 

 N. lutea agg. 

 (LI -12) 



20-13 ± 0-24 

 20-77 ± 0-36 

 19-56 ± 0-31 

 23-54 ± 0-44 

 25-23 ± 0-59 



33-70 ± 0-77 



12- 54 ± 0-20 



13- 20 ± 0-22 



12- 14 ± 0-33 



13- 45 ± 0-43 

 19-80 ± 0-46 



31-70 ± M l 



11-42 ± 0-17 

 11-63 ± 0-21 

 10-86 ± 0-13 

 10-56 ± 0-41 

 9-82 ± 0-25 



15-11 ± 0-22 



4- 74 ± 0-11 



5- 00 i 0-13 

 8-22 ± 0-34 



15-12 ± 0-25 



9-42 ± 0-11 

 9-26 ± 0-15 

 9-54 ± 0-16 



10- 90 ± 0-20 



11- 58 ± 0-18 



15-78 ± 0-19 



7-96 ± 0-14 



7- 88 i 0-19 



8- 36 ± 0-15 

 10-11 ± 0-23 



9- 20 ±0-18 



12- W ± 0-22 



Floral Characters 



Both meristic and size characters have been compared, the dimensions selected in 

 the latter case being those which arc most readily and consistcntl) assessable, \ iz. maximum 

 length and width of largest sepal, length of largest petal and diameter of stigmatic disc. 

 The meristic characters are petal and carpel, uumber. 



