Papaver Rhaeas, P. dubium & hybrid between them . 117 
examples. On the other hand, Mr. Britton’s Ref. No. 184 (l.c.) 
seems to me a not infrequent form of P. Rhceas with rather more 
elongated capsules than usual, but scarcely so extreme as that 1 
have figured (f. 7). 
In 1912, Mr. Britton again gathered and distributed some 
Poppies from Banstead (op. cit. 1912, 227) and he has kindly lent 
me examples of these. A plant bearing the Ref. No. 795 is, 1 
believe, the hybrid under discussion showing more of the Rhceas 
parentage but, unlike his No. 197 and my Chilworth plants which 
were barren, this example had set apparently fertile seed. The 
Chilworth poppy that Mr. Britton gathered in 1895 (l.c. 228) I find 
upon examination to be very different to the hybrid plants from that 
locality described in this note, and seems in all essentials tobeP. 
Rhceas with the rather elongated capsule noted above. 
Miss M. Cobbe has quite recently sent me a Poppy which she 
gathered at Pyrford, Surrey, in August last; it agrees exactly with 
my Chilworth hybrid as regards peduncle, hairs, stigma-disc and 
capsule and is, moreover, apparently quite sterile. 
Specimens of the Chilworth hybrid are being deposited in Herb. 
Mus. Brit, and at Kew and Cambridge so that future workers on 
the genus who may read these notes may know exactly the form 
of the hybrid to which 1 refer. As the Chilworth details I have 
noted are simply the outcome of a few observations made in one 
locality, they are given in the hopes that others may report similar 
plants from their district or record in some detail the points in 
which their conclusions differ from those to which I have attempted 
to arrive. 
Since writing the notes above, 1 have come across the Rev. 
E. A. Woodruffe-Peacock's interesting article upon Poppy hybrids 
in Journ. Bot., 1913, 48. His examination of the comparative 
number of stigmatic rays in P. Rhceas and dubium brings out a 
result which coincides with my observations at Chilworth, but his 
hybrid, which he calls strigosum and which presumably possesses 
strigose hairs on the peduncles, is obviously not the same form of 
the cross as 1 have described and figured. 
