151 
Little’s examples show indications of teeth near the apex, I do 
not think the plants should be placed under this variety. C.E.S. 
Festuca ovina L. var. capillata Hackel. “ Wymley,” Wymondley 
Road, Hitchin, Herts., v.c. 20, June 27, 1920. — J. E. Little. 
Correctly named. — W. 0. Howarth. 
F. rubra L. Wymondley Road, Hitchin, Herts., v.c. 20, 
June 29, 1920.— J. E. Little. Whilst I do not consider it a 
typical specimen, I am inclined to place it under Festuca eu-rubra, 
var 1 (6) genuina subvar. gvandijiora Hack. (“Mon. Fest. Europ. 
p. 139). F. rubra megastachys Gaud. — W. 0. Howarth. Hackel 
also quotes the name F. rubra diversifolia in Gaudin “FI. Helv.’ 
i. 288.— H.S.T. 
F. loliacea Curt. ? Purwell, Hitchin, Herts., v.c. 20, July 10, 
1920. — J. E. Little. I think the author of this as a species was 
Hudson. Curtis called it a var. of F. pratensis, while Focke 
makes it a hybrid of F. elatior L. x Lolium perenne. Nyman and 
Hackel consider it to be F. pratensis x Lolium perenne. Though 
only a state, this seems near the var. pseuclololiacea Hackel. — 
A. Bennett. F. elatior x Lolium perenne Hack. F. loliacea Curt. 
— W. O. Howarth. The very unequal glumes and the general 
habit of the plant suggests F. pratensis x Lolium perenne ; the 
colouring is that of the former. Curtis (“FI. Loud.”) says (de- 
scribing his loliacea ) that the glumes are “for the most part two, 
though it often happens that the inner one is very small, imperfect 
and sometimes wanting altogether ; but it happens very rarely 
indeed that the inner valve is wanting in all the spiculae of a 
spike from the same root.” The example he figures has spikelets 
almost an inch long, and in other respects also does not portray 
Mr. Little’s plant. The specimen figured in “E.B. 1821” (of 
F. loliacea Huds.) is, in habit, much more like the examples 
before me, but t he glumes are drawn almost ecpial in length ; 
this is not the case in the presumed hybrid, except at the very 
summit of the spike. Husnot (“ Graminees,” 1896 — 99, p. 65) 
distinguishes F. pratensis Huds. (under which is a var. pseudo- 
loliacea Coss. & Germ.) from F. loliacea Huds. by a number of 
characters. The latter, he says, seems to be a hybrid between 
F. pratensis and Lolium perenne. According to this author, Mr. 
Little’s plant would come best under F. loliacea with its very 
unequal glumes, lower pale less acuminate than in pratensis , 
strongly five-veined glume, etc. It seems quite possible that 
Curtis, under the figure and description of his loliacea (“ FI. 
Loud.” VI, 9) included both the pseudo-loliacea and the presumed 
hybrid. — C. E. Salmon. 
