ARCTIC PLANTS NOT YET FOUND IN BRITAIN By NIcHoLAs POLUNIN
In the rightly appreciative reviews that have so far been published of the welcome new Flora of the British Isles (Clapham, Tutin and Warburg, 1952), there does not appear to be any mention of the omission, even as addenda, of the two most important additions to the known British flora that have bee...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Text |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.669.4816 http://archive.bsbi.org.uk/Wats3p34.pdf |
| Summary: | In the rightly appreciative reviews that have so far been published of the welcome new Flora of the British Isles (Clapham, Tutin and Warburg, 1952), there does not appear to be any mention of the omission, even as addenda, of the two most important additions to the known British flora that have been made in recent years. These were Koenigia islandica L., a genus new to Britain, and Diapensia lapponica L., a family new to Britain; both are now considered "undoubtedly native on remote hills in Scotland " (Lousley, 1952). Both discoveries stirred public interest far beyond the British scientific press; that of Koenigia was announced in 1950 from material collected in 1934 (Burtt, 1950) and that of Diapensia was made in 1951 (Blakelock, 1952). More detailed accounts of the Koenigia (Raven, 1952) and of the Diapensia (Roger, 1952) in Scotland have now been published, as have reports in The Times and elsewhere; the former plant has since been refound also in neighbouring localities (Raven, 1952) and the latter is abundantly confirmed (Roger, 1952). It has also been reported (Lousley, 1951; Ribbons, 1952) that Homogyne alpina (L.) Cass. has been confirmed as occurring in the British Isles, although the elder George Don's "reputed discovery " (cf. Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edinburgh, 3, 112-3 |
|---|