Burton Agnes Crepis. 
63 
leaves are broader than those given in the above description, but the 
general proportions are roughly maintained . No evidence is yet available 
as to the mode of introduction of this plant into Great Britain. At 
Freshwater, it grew in a meadow ; in North Yorkshire, on waste ground. 
Attempts to induce seed formation by pollinating the flowers on the 
cultivated plant proved completely unsuccessful, and the failure may 
indicate self -sterility. The original N. Yorkshire plant sent to the 
writer by Dr. Druce, which grew, it is understood, with many more of 
the same kind, had formed fertile fruit.' 
When Dr. Drabble writes of North Yorkshire, he means, of course, 
East Yorkshire. This is an important correction, because it might lead 
to confusion between the Crepis from Burton Agnes and the Crepis from 
Allerston. 
Further specimens were sent to Dr. Drabble which are dealt with in 
the following letter ffrom Mr. Lawson, dated nth October, 1932 : ‘ I 
was at Burton Agnes last Friday, and I obtained a solitary specimen of 
Crepis in fruit. It was a secondary growth, but not a very fine one, as it 
had grown from a primary stump which had been cut by the scythe a 
few months ago. I sent this to Dr. Drabble as he desired to have a 
further specimen, and I enclose his reply, dated 9th October, 1932 : 
“ Thank you for the plant from Burton Agnes. Though peculiar in 
some respects, I can only call it Crepis biennis . I don’t think it is the 
same as the large and much less hairy plants you kindly sent to me in 
June ; if I can ripen off fruits, I shall try to grow it.” ’ 
Mr. Lawson continues : ‘ I am sorry Dr. Drabble does not think it 
is the same species as the one I sent to him in June. I feel almost certain 
these autumnal secondary flowers and fruits are identical with the early 
tall plants of June. In fact, it is quite easy to recognise the old summer 
stumps. Last time Dr. Drabble called the plant Crepis oporinoides Boiss. 
and this time he suggests Crepis biennis Linn., which, I think, agrees 
with your decision more than once expressed.’ 
I will now summarise the results of this investigation made over a 
period of nearly ten years. The following are the suggested names : 
18th June, 1923 
23rd ,, 1923 
25th June, 1925 
10th July, 1928 
10th Sept. 1928 
18th June, 1932 
9th Oct. 1932 
Crepis biennis Linn. \ 
Crepis capillaris Wallr. J 
Crepis biennis Linn. 
Crepis taraxacifolia Thuill. \ 
Crepis nicaeensis Balb. J 
Crepis oporinoides Boiss. \ 
Crepis biennis Linn. J 
Flintoff . 
Kew. 
Druce. 
Drabble. 
From a consideration of these data, I conclude that Crepis biennis 
Linn is a very variable plant, particularly in regard to its hairiness, so 
that different specimens show marked dissimilarities, leading to their 
confusion one with another, and with other closely allied species. It 
may be there are several very rare species of Crepis growing at Burton 
Agnes in the same small plot of land. As Mr. Lawson has pointed out, 
this seems extremely improbable. Further, I am of opinion that the 
Crepis at Burton Agnes in the East Riding, and the Crepis at Allerston 
in the North Riding, are both Crepis biennis Linn., and most likely new 
records for both Ridings. The late J. F. Robinson, in his ‘ Flora of the 
East Riding,’ gives : ‘ Crepis biennis Linn. Colonist. Ger. 1. On the 
wolds, near Bishop Burton (Robert Teesdale) : not noted by anyone 
since, and probably a mistake at first. (See Wats. Top. Bot.).’ 
And for the North Riding, John Gilbert Baker gives one doubtful 
station at Great Ayton, recorded by W. Mudd. 
In any case, they are very rare plants. Will any botanist, who is in 
a position to give authoritative information, relative to the occurrence 
of Crepis biennis Linn, in the East or North Ridings, be kind enough to 
do so ? 
1933 March 1 
