Hairy Violet Identification

Hairy and Sweet Violet, how to tell them apart.

A good clue is in the names of these close species, Hairy Violet has hairy leaf stems whereas Sweet Violet has either no hairs or very short hairs. Although this is basically true, in practice it is often difficult, not only because Sweet Violet is very variable but also these two close species do hybridise.
As with many challenges there is nothing like a little practice to gets ones eyes tuned in by closely looking a few plants of each species. The real problem is the hybrids can occur anywhere and are probably more common than the distribution map would indicate. Intermediate plants will occur and  many will not be the vigerous F1 type but long term stable variations produced by back-crossing. The BSBI Plant Crib 1998 states these hybrids can be quite variable and not easy to tell from either parent.

Basic ID Features.
First step is to check the sepals are blunt ended to exclude all the dog violets. This is (as far as I can tell) an absolutely reliable feature and also Dog Violets are a separate enough never to hybridise with the Hairy/Sweet Violet pair. See previous blog for diagrams of this feature.

Second feature of the Hairy/Sweet pair is that all stems come from a basal rosette unlike Dog Violets that have stems that divide (with leaves and flowers).

Sweet Violet (and the hybrid) do push out stolons ( shoots that stay close to the ground which the form another basal rosette a few cm from the parent plant.) The presence of stolons is diagnostic for Sweet Violet ( also the hybrid often have them).  Small plants of either species of course may have not developed stolons yet, also they can be hard to find if the plant is growing in grass.

What is Hairy.

Above photo shows leaf of Hairy ( Viola hirta) and Sweet Violet ( Viola odorata). The leaf stem ( petioles) are clearly different in the length of the hairs.  If all leaves were this simple.

First problem is that not all leaf stems in Hairy Violets have these long hairs, many have no hairs especially early grown leaves.  I have seen plants that have only one stem hairy and four without hairs, so it must be possible that occasional plants could completely lack this feature. Fortunately at least one stem usually shows it true hairiness.

Photo above shows Hairy Violet basal rosette with lower leaf stem showing no hairs ( lower right) and other stems with very prominent hairs. The key feature of these hairs is the length at about 50% of stem thickness (or even slightly more up to about 1mm long) and the way they sick out at 90 degrees (patent).  Best to look for the new leaves that are also hairy and have the most hairy stems. Go by the most hairy stems as the indicator.

   Hairy Violet ( V. hirta) Madingley. 31st March 2014

Example of really hairy leaf stem. Leaf shape tends to be more pointed than Sweet Violet which has a more rounded end. Any plant with these more pointed longer leaves is worth a closer look as it is a good pointer for Hairy Violets, however some pure Sweet Violets can have untypical leaf shape very similar to Hairy.  Leaves can be quite hairy as well as stems. Both species have hairs on the margin of the leaf.

Three examples based on the most hairy leaf stems present on a plant.

Photo above is a Hairy Violet leaf stem with typical hairs about 50% of stem thickness and pointing out at right angles (patent) giving it a quite spiky appearance. Some plants can have even longer hairs.

Photo above is a Sweet Violet. Short length hairs  (15% of stem thickness) are about as long as these hairs get on Sweet Violet. many plants have no hairs on leaf stems.

Photo above is a hybrid known as Viola x scabra  Intermediate length hairs  (25% of stem thickness) can occur on some stems of Hairy Violet but if this the longest hair type present probably indicated a hybrid  Hairs approx at 45 degrees to stem which gives a much less spiky appearance. Combination of quite long hairs at about 45 degrees seems a very good feature of hybrids. Hybrids are often vigorous with large leaves but not always.

The highly vigorous F1 hybrid normally have these medium length hairs at 45 degrees.

Example follow to show this.

14th April 18. Bedford Gap, Fleam Dyke, Cambs. Example from vigorous hybrid clump showing long angled hairs.

Same plant , example of flower. The very pale throat of this example is found in both Hairy Violet and the hybrids. It is also probably present in some Sweet Violet. In fact flower colour and amount of violet streaking in the throat or whether lateral hairs are present or not does not seem to help in separation of Sweet and Hairy Violets. Just too much variation present. At the tip of the orange conal appendages which terminate the anthers ( the pale part just visible ) is the style which is normally bent down at the tip. On the right of this photo is a part eaten flower as some bug has decided not to enter by the front door to get at the nectar but just eating through the spur. Quite a common route.

How do you spot a F1 hybrid, see next photos. Not that difficult. Group of Hairy Violets at Madingley.  30th April 2014. Both Sweet and Hairy are present at this site plus a few vigorous hybrids.

Secondary feature  Sepal appendage direction.
The leaf stem hairs are the key ID feature however the BSBI Handbook no 17 , Violas of Britain and Ireland lists a couple of interesting secondary features to help in separating these species. One is that the sepal appendages in Sweet Violet are patent ( that is they stick out from the stem) whereas the sepal appendages of Hairy Violet are appressed.  An immediate problem is that sepal appendages are very variable, the top one might be smaller than the side ones and they can vary in shape etc. Having taken quite a few photos of this feature, provided you only use the top sepal appendage it does seem to work. At least it holds up in the two Cambridgeshire sites I have checked , Fleam Dyke and Madingley.  I suspect that this feature is not 100% reliable?

Example of a Sweet Violet V. ordorata var. dumetorum  below

Sweet Violet sepal appendages which run parallel to the stem. In this case all the appendages are about the same in size and shape.

Sepal appendages of a Hairy Violet. Not quite the best angle but the appendages tend to bend into the stem rather than staying parallel.

Sepal appendages of a Hairy Violet ( Possibly a hybrid)  which shows appendages adpressed. This plant has the upwards end of the spur which is a common feature of Hairy Violets.

This plant was on a roadside verge near to Dungate Farm TL5599 5277 and a whole group of plants showed intermediate leaf hairs.

Based on the non patent hairs this look like a candidate for a Hybrid despite none of the plants were showing any F1 vigour.   The other strange feature was the leaf shape was not that pointed and more like Sweet Violet. The combination of leaf shape and leaf stem hairs does suggest these plants are hybrids.

Another example of a non-vigorous hybrid.

15th April 2018. Taken at East Hatley, Churchyard on a Cambridge Flora Group walk and found by Steve Hartley who immediately noticed that this small group of plants were probably hybrids.

Photo of flower follows.

Secondary Feature, Position of bracteoles on flower stem.

Mentioned in the new Viola BSBI Handbook as a feature to distinguish between Sweet and Hairy Violet, I took some measurements of 10 plants at Madingley of each species and found  it works. Sweet Violet has the bracteole above the mid point whereas Hairy has them below the mid point.
In fact there was no overlap so this looked like good news and we could forget all those problems with stem hairs.  Unfortunately increasing the sample to other sites started to point to a more complex picture, with many plants having the bracteole at 50 % whether Sweet or Hairy.  Having said that plants with the bracteole at 30% of stem hight or less were always Hairy and plants with bracteole at 70% up were always Sweet Violet so there is definitely something going on.  

Example of a white flower Sweet Violet ( var. dumetorum) showing bracteoles just below the flower ( the tiny green leaf like structure on the flower stem).

Example of Hairy Violet with bracteole at 20% of stem height. Hard to see but just possible.

Conclusion.

Based on a few years attempting to learn about the various species of Violets I have to conclude that nothing is straightforward with the identification of these species. Dog Violets are well known to present problems but probably less known is how hard it can be to separate Sweet and Hairy Violets.
Some populations can be straight forward but many are not and are probably stable hybrids. The main feature which is missed in the field guides is that Hairy Violets only have some leaf stems that are fully hairy and this adds a massive variable. This in addition to the hybrid problem really can make ID difficult.

Peter Leonard. Rampton, Cambridgeshire.  20th April 2018

Sweet Violet ( Viola ordorata ) and variants

Sweet Violet  ( Viola odorata )

Sweet and Hairy Violets form a pair of species that are distinct from the Dog Violets in having very blunt ended sepals.

The sepals are attached so a smaller part points backwards towards the stem called the Sepal Appendage and the majority points forward to protect the petals. The petal end is blunt and rounded in both Sweet and Hairy Violets.

The various species of Dog Violets have pointed sepals. The length of the sepal appendage can be important in separation of Dog Violets.

Violets can be tricky to identify as species are prone to considerable variation and hybridisation but the sepal shape is consistent and reliable to determine Sweet/Hairy Violets from Dog Violets.

This post looks at the variation in Sweet Violets based on the BSBI Handbook. 

Usually regarded as native, however the Sweet Violet has a long history of been grown in gardens and in horticulture.  Violets were grown on a massive scale in France and in Britain they were harvested for chemicals (used as an indicator and later as a scent extract) and also as cut flowers. There is a book that covers this subject , Violets The History and Cultivation of Scented Violets  by Roy E. Coombs and its covers the many of the cultivars that resulted in all this horticultural activity.

Types covered are:-

Viola odorata var. odorata  ( Standard type, violet flowers)

Viola odiorata var. imberbis   ( White variation found in southern half of Britain)

Viola odorata var. dumetorum ( White variation occurs widely, especially common at edge of range) 

Viola odorata f. lilacina ( often found where violet and white forms occur together)

I guess that at least three native forms of Sweet Violets were present before man started to breed different versions. First is the classic violet coloured Viola odorata var. odorata  and the second is the white version Viola odorata var. imberbis.  Fortunately both grow in the field behind my house plus a mixture of the two which might fit Viola f. lilacina.

Viola odorata var. odorata.      1st April 2018  Rampton, Cambridgeshire.

The standard type with violet petals has inner hairs on side petals, some hairs on flower stem, violet spur. 

Viola odorata var. odorata  2nd April 2018. Rampton,  Close up to show hairs on side petals and a bold pattern of purple veins splitting into thinner veins but still clearly defined. 

Viola odorata Var. imberbis 

Voila odorata var. imberbis     2nd April 2018, Rampton, Cambridgeshire.

A lot of flowers can have white variants but the flower colour is not the only change here, so more is going on. It might suggest variants or sub-species of Sweet Violet are evolving into separate species but have not quite reached that point.  Several differences seen on this white form are the lack of hairs at the entrance to the inside of the spur on the side petals and the lack of hairs also on the flower stem or leaf stems.  No purple veins present. Typical of this variant is the pinkish spur. This adds up to quite a few differences apart from the white petal colour.

Side View of V. odonata var. imberbis showing pink spur, blunt sepals, pure white petals without any hint of purple streaking and lack of any hairs on the flower stem.

Detail of flower showing lack of inner hairs on side petals.   31st March 2018, Rampton.

Viola odorata f. lilacina (a form, possibly a mix of the above variants?)

A form rather than a variant. This particular flower was selected as it is at the palest end of the range present and grows about 20m from the normal violet and white types present in Rampton. Other plants have a more purple flushed appearance. This intermediate form may not be related to the presence of purple and white types nearby, all I can say is that they have been present for at least six years and were not planted while I have lived in the house ( 25 years).

Viola odorata f. lilacina , a pale example showing inner white hairs to side petals and hairs on flowering stem. Almost white with a few purple streaks. Spur is purple.   1st April  2018, Rampton.

Same flower but side view showing slightly distorted spur ( odd shaped spurs are often a feature of Hairy Violet  (Viola hirta ) but this may be in this case due to this form being a mixture of two variations ?. )  , purple spur colour, quite hairy stem and of course the blunt round ended sepals.

Different flower showing more purple streaking to show a more typical example. Note the inner hairs are prominent on the side petals.


Viola odorata var. dumetorum  

Not in Rampton but photographed on the Devils Ditch near Stetchworth, Newmarket. 25th March 2018.  Similar to ver. imberbis with pure white petals but different as this var. has inner side petal hairs.  Spur colour is purple and flower stem with some hairs.

Side view of same flower.

Conclusion.
Sweet Violet has several variants which have consistent characteristics and these are covered in the BSBI Handbook.  The examples covered here are more likely to be native, with other colour types probably likely to be either introductions or escapes from horticulture. Sweet Violet also hybridises with Hairy Violet ( Viola hirta ). Hairy Violets 'always' have some new leaf stems with longer and often more patent hairs however it is not always easy to separate them. The hybrids have intermediate hairs and are often vigorous but the real problem is that the hybrid can backcross and form types that range from Sweet to Hairy in their characteristics.

 Quite how two variants came to be in the field behind my house in Rampton is not known, but the intermediate form was one of the first plants I attempted to identify when I started getting into botany and this lead onto my attempts to understand Violets. I thought this would be an easy group but was totally wrong as the Dog Violets are a very complex group.  See previous blogs for more on Dog Violets.


Peter Leonard
2nd April 2018


Reference.
Michael Porter and Michael Foley.  Violas of Britain and Ireland  BSBI Handbook No 17

Leontodon saxatilis in Portugal

Lesser Hawkbit ( Leontodon saxatilis)  in Portugal (Atlantic Coast of Algarve)

Several yellow 'Dandelion' type flowers were seen in Portugal, some remained un-identified but Lesser Hawkbit was given away by its split hair tips and similarity to the plants seen in Britain.
Part 1 

Bracts quite hairy but well within limits seen in Britain and inner bracts have quite a nice dark edging which is often a good feature of L.saxatilis, whereas Rough Hawkbit ( Leontodon hispidus) tends to have less distinct brown edging where if present the brown merges into the green centre.  Grey petal underside banding typical of saxatilis is present. However underside petal banding can be absent in both saxatilis and hispidus giving all yellow petals, also both can show grey and red banding.
Outer bracts are adpressed typical of saxatilis and with red tips.  Stem thickens to meet the flower head, which is common in both saxatilis and hispidus.

Second photo shows the plant with its many flowers and leaves tending to stay close to the ground, which you would expect as surrounding vegetation is sparse and does not compete for light.
The leaves are sparsely hairy and this plant does not show any red based hairs on the midribs of the leaves, which can be a good feature of saxatilis if present.
Plant structure has the flowers on un-branched stems and no leaves on the stems.

Leaf shape typical in shape and could be either more or less lobed.

Main feature of the leaf is the split ended hairs which is the distinctive feature of hispidus and saxatilis.  Hairs are quite sparse and some are simple without the split end, whereas many have the tip split into two ( occasionally 3 or 4).

The plant photographed was growing in a rural setting about a kilometre from the sea and seems to conform to a typical L.saxatilis that could be growing in the UK.  Move to a more extreme habitat of the sea facing cliff top and things get more difficult.

Part 2

Habitat shot of cliff edge. Not much competition here but some nice small yellow flowers to look at.

First thing to stand out was the very fleshy nature of the leaves. They were much thicker than normal and very strange. First thing to check was the presence of the split hairs to at least confirm we have a Leontodon.

Good news is that split ended hairs are present so I was pretty sure these plants are Leontodon despite the very fleshy leaves. One other variation is that some split hairs have the very tips hooked, more like the split ends of Hawkwed Oxtongue. I have never seen this in the UK when looking for 3 and 4 tipped hairs. See near the top of the photo.

Having decided that these plants are Leontodon next step is to look at the flowers and see what features they have.

First impression is this looks more like saxatilis than hispidus with limited hairiness on the bracts and outer bracts adpressed. These outer bracts are shorter that normal and red in colour, but the whole plant was small due to the habitat so one might expect some odd features. The longer inner bracts are not showing the dark brown edging that can be typical of saxatilis but it is not a 100% feature and this is Portugal.

 Another flower showing no hairs showing that the amount of hairiness within this cliff top population does vary. Some dark edging present at bract tips but not as distinct as often seen in the UK.

Rosette of leaves staying low to the ground typical of saxatilis but even hispidus will do this when competition is low which is certainly true at this site.

Example of small but very fleshy leaf. Might just be red based hairs on the mid-rib.

Post flowering head showing a lot of red on both lower and inner bracts that was a common feature of plants in this population.

A final photo shows a new flower bud and the fleshy leaves.  Of course, the one thing I did not do was to check the main ID feature of the outer achenes, to see if they had the short scales. At the time I thought I had to wait for the seed heads to form, before you could check this feature.   I now know it is possible to see this feature in post flowering heads. These photos were taken back in Mid April 2016 when I had less experience with Leontodons.

These photos were taken on the Atlantic coast between Praia da Arrifana and Monte Clerigo west of Aljezur in Southern Portugal.

Conclusion. The very thick fleshy leaves, of what I think are L.saxatilis are possibly a good example of considerable variation within this species. It may be an adaptation to the exposed coastal habitat including some salt spray. Having said that many of the secondary features are worthwhile, rather than only relying on the main ID feature of the outer achenes having short scales.

Postscript.  Found a rather good site that has some super photos of Leontodon in Portugal at

http://flora-on.pt/#/0vAe8

This Portugal site uses the old name for L. saxatilis, L. taraxacoides and it would appear that in Portugal it splits into two sub-species, L. taraxacoides subs longirostris which is local but widespread throughout Portugal and looks very similar to the first plants I found (http://flora-on.pt/#/0Tjf8)

The second sub-species is called L. taraxacoides subs taraxacoides and that has the fleshy  leaves and conforms to the plants on the sea cllifs , part 2.  ( http://flora-on.pt/#/0vAe8 ). 

This second sub-species is also widespread but more local in distribution, see maps below the photographs on the site. How reliable these sub-species are in terms of features is not known. L.hispidus is very rare in Portugal occurring in just one small area in the middle of the country ref the flora-on site map.  

Subspecies longirostris is found in Southern Europe, but L. taraxacoides.taraxacoides with the fleshy leaves is the same species as found in the UK. The key difference is the length of the beak of inner achenes being 1mm in L. taraxacoides.taraxacoides and 2-3mm in L . taraxacoides subs longirostris. 
I did not find any plants with seed heads to check this feature at the time.  Strange thing is the fleshy leaved plants looked very different to those seen in the UK so we are back to geographical variation and possibly adaptation to a very dry cliff top habitat.  


22nd January 2018

Peter Leonard

Rampton

Hawkbits ( Leontodon )

Rough Hawkbit ( Leontodon hispidus) and Lesser Hawkbit (Leontodon saxatilis)

 As a relatively new convert to botany  I thought I would learn to identify the 'yellow dandelions' , since they are everywhere including several species growing in my garden like Smooth Hawksbeard (Crepis capillaries) and Autumn Hawkbit (Scorzoneroides autumnalis).

Some groups like Crepis have proved difficult but the two Leontodon's seemed at first, to be straight forward. My method of learning is based on taking lots of photos and looking out for variation in features that are given as identification clues in the field guides.

Looking at the involucral bracts of the flower head, hispidus is normally hairy, saxatilis generally has no or few hairs but a couple of photos from Therfield Heath and Devils Ditch broke that pattern and this resulted in a conversation with Dr Alan Leslie. Alan had found several plants that he regarded as hybrids at both Devils Ditch and Chipenham Fen based on the achene pappus having intermediate features. I was keen to take some photographs of these hybrids so a visit was arranged and this resulted in Alan suggesting I put up a display at the BSBI Exhibition meeting.

The following is based on the BSBI exhibit.

1) Title Page.



2) Literature.

The Hybrid Flora of the British Isles by Stace, Preston & Pearman gives a summary of the hybrid, named Leontodon X vegetus.  It was first found as recently as 1945 at Seaton Sluice. Later is was studied by Leontodon specialist R.A. Finch who found it a quite a few other sites across England.
The two species are separated by low F1 fertility when they grow together, however Mr Finch concluded that some 'backcrossed plants occur the the wild, differing from L. hispidus only in the
 pappus of the outer achenes.'

It would appear that the expert botanist takes variation in his stride, whereas the relative newcomer like myself, has a naive expectation that what is written in the field guides has to be true. I am learning that variation is not well covered in the literature. It can be hinted at and a good example being the sentence in Harrap's Wild Flowers, - Most reliably separated by the clock inner seeds with plumes of long hairs , but outer row of seeds tipped by a collar of pale chaffy scales,....In other words all the other features described are useful but  do not rely on them.  Mr Harrap choses his words carefully.

Having taken photos at quite a few sites, separating hispidus from saxatilis is often straight forward since they look quite different. L. hispidus is a 'rough' larger plant with a a shaggy flower head and with very hairy bracts and L. saxatilis has a flower with limited hairs and leaves that stay close to the ground etc.  It is always worth checking the common feature that is key to Leontodons , the split hairs normally looked for by bending a leaf over your finger and using a X15 eyepiece. These split hairs are unlike the hooks of Hawkweed Oxtongue, in that they are not hooks but gentle split ends  that head off with an angle of about 120degrees between them. Sometimes the splits are tiny occurring at the very tip and occasionally both species have some three pointed hairs ( trifid).


3) Variation vs hybrids.

Having taken quite a few photos of these two species, initial thought was they are well separated and that hybrids would fall somewhere between them so, without actually doing any real measurements one might come up with the following type of variation concept.

If the variation, is in fact wider and overlapping, then making any firm identification would be very difficult. Alan had told me that Sell noted that L.hispidus in Eastern Europe has no hairs on its involurcal bracts, so a key feature is highly variable if you travel far enough.

Before we look at hybrids first step is to show some photos of each species pointing out some possible differences that might help in identification.



4) Lesser Hawkbit  (L.saxatilis)

This is a very typical example. The main feature is the lack of hairs. The stem is quite tapering into the flower head and this is very common in both L. saxatilis and L. hispidus. The dark brown and distinct edging to the inner bracts is a distinctive feature of saxatilis but on some plants can be less distinct and become similar to hispidus  that have vague less distinct brown tips. (This feature is less useful in Spain but seems to work in Ireland.)  Outer bracts in saxatilis are tipped red or black.  The pale grey under colour banding of the petals show well in this photo but many plants have just yellow petals and occasionally red banding and these features are shared with L.hispidus .

From the same plant showing the leaf and the low density of hairs. Resolution not quite up to showing that most of these hairs have split ends. The density of hairs is very variable but a feature I will look more at next year is the length of the hairs which seem longer in L. saxatilis.  The leaves were quite upright at Chippenham Fen as these plants were growing in quite long grass which is contrary to the conventional thought that saxatilis has leaves that stay low to the ground.

Just to throw in a bit of geographic range this photo was taken in the very west of the Beara Peninsula  , West Cork, Ireland and conforms very well to what you might expect a L.saxatilis to look like in Cambridgeshire with adpressed red tipped bracts, dark brown edging and no hairs.

The picture above shows a more hairy example but it is not uncommon to see this amount of hairs on the bracts.  Interesting feature of this plant was the density of hairs on the leaves.

Very hairy. Has the red-based hairs on the midrib showing nicely which is a good feature for L. saxatilis,  although not all leaves have it and some plants do not show this feature at all. I have yet to see a L. hsipidus with red based hairs on the midrib (very rare?) although they do have the occasional simple red -based hairs present on the leaves.

The shape of the achene being attenuated/short-beaked is noted in Clapham. Tutin & Warburg and is a good feature for the central florets.  All achenes have the full pappus of hairs  except the very outer row and they have short scales. See photo below.

The outer achenes lie supported by the bracts and can remain long after all the other achenes with pappus hairs have blown away. The short ring of scales rather than the pappus hairs is the number one ID feature to separate saxatilis from hispidus.   These outer achenes can be hard to see until you pull off most of the surrounding seeds. Note they do not have the beaked attenuation and can often be quite curved.

Final shot of Lesser Hawkbit ( L.saxatilis) shows a flower head just after petal stage showing that the outer achene can be seen on the right with its lack of pappus.

5) Rough Hawkbit ( L.hispidus)

Typically not as neat as Lesser Hawkbit. Yellow petals and without any under petal banding that some examples have. Banding grey/red colour is not a reliable feature between these species.
Often so hairy on the bracts, that you can hardy see the outer bracts are not adpressed and stick out before curving inwards.

This example is unusual in that the outer bracts are adpressed just to show that distinction is not a 100% reliable. However it is hairy, the outer bracts do not have the distinct dark brown edging or the red/black tips. Looks good for L.hispidus which was confirmed by looking at the seed heads.

 Example seed head with all achenes have the full pappus and the achenes not having the semi-beaked attenuation of L.saxatilis. Some sterile achenes look very pale.

The achene is thickest at about one third length then tappers down over the next two thirds.

Leaf hairs. Not all plants are this hairy, some have sparse hairs so as usual, the amount of hairs is not a reliable ID feature. The spilt hairs are just about visible in this photo. About 10% or less of the hairs are just simple without a split and if you look hard enough some hairs have three tips (or even 4).
Three tipped hairs have also been found on the leaves of L.saxatilis.

5) Candidate Hybrids


Hybrids occur where both species are present based on the theory that the outer achenes have a mixture of short scales and pappus hairs.  These sites also display plants that have odd features which could just be variation but I think are more likely to indication of being hybrids.
The first plant I found was at Therefield Heath where a flower stood out as being slightly more orange that any of the L.hispidus around it. Going over to get a closer look it showed less hairs on the bracts and a slightly thinner flower head shape that normal.

Apart from the petal colour and the narrow shape of the flower head this example has very few hairs compared to nearby L.hispidus. The inner bracts are not quite normal either with the brown edging  looking a bit more like saxatilis.   The outer bracts are sticking out which is often a feature of L.hispidus. The under petal coloured redish banding occurs in both species. At the time back in 2015, I regarded this as a variation of L.hispidus but  since both species occur at Therfield Heath this could be a hybrid. The stem was not tagged so I could not go back later to check the seeds, so I will never know.

The type of seed head I might have found is shown above. The key feature for hybrids is the mixed short scales and long pappus hairs on the outer achenes. The achenes do not have consistent ends being either like L.saxatilis with just short scales ( most) or to having a mixture (few). The achenes all appear to be not fertile which lines up well with the Hybrid Flora. The bracts and stem show this plant is towards the hairy end of range indicating L.hispidus.  This photo was taken at Chippenham Fen on a trip with Alan Leslie who had found a mixed population growing close together and plants exhibiting mixed features.

Although it would be expected that most hybrids would have sterile seeds in fact it was not difficult to find seed heads that looked viable.  This example has achene ends that fit both species plus the mixed type.

Above photo is an example of flower head that has mixed features , from Chippenham Fen where direct comparison to pure L.saxatilis and L. hispidus is possible since they all grow together.

Habitat shot of Chippenham Fen where both species grow together.

6) Conclusion.

At the BSBI Exhibition I was fortunate to be challenged by no less that Co-author of the Hybrid Flora, Chris Preston, that none of the secondary features that I was recording to identify between the two species would hold if you travelled across Europe. Having photographed plants in Portugal and Spain, I was forced to say I had to agree, however there is more to learn. If you look hard enough and maybe within Britain and Ireland it might be possible to understand the limits of variation, what are really hybrids and determine the reliability of secondary features.

My reference site for L.saxatilis which I thought was pure and without variation is at Waterbeach Cemetery. An extra concern was added, when I found two plants that have hybrid features of mixed scales and hairs. Could this mean that the single recognised feature for hybrids is actually not totally reliable? I don't know of any L. hispidus growing nearby but maybe they do.

I went back the next day to have a closer look and found a flower head on the same plant was not quite as typical for pure saxatilis as one might expect with its red outer bracts and slightly larger size. Maybe it is a hybrid after all and my pure site is not as pure as I believed?

Finally a few preliminary notes on features and problems.

Peter Leonard. Rampton, Cambridgeshire.      2nd December 2017