Lake Lancashire

[David Price]

I have wondered what was meant by "Lake Lancashire" when I saw it on collectors' labels.

I have now seen the following note in BEC Report for 1913, p. 400 (http://www.watsonia.org.uk/BEC_1913_Vol_3_pt_5.pdf) which provides the explanation -

NOTE ON TOPOGRAPHICAL BOTANY.

North, or Lake, Lancashire is entirely detached from the rest of the County Palatine by Morecambe Bay and a wedge of Westmorland. The name Lake Lancashire was given it by Watson, who included it with Westmorland in his vice-county 69. This is unfortunate, as it is often impossible to say whether plants recorded for 69 occur in one county only, or both. In view of the facts that North Lancashire possesses an exceptionally rich flora - quite worthy of separate treatment - and that ultimately a Flora of the whole of Lancashire is contemplated, I would suggest that in future we adopt the very simple expedient of denoting Westmorland ( the larger area) as 69 a, and North Lancashire as 69 b - the present county-boundaries to be understood. The adoption of this differentiation would remove ambiguity, tend to greater accuracy, and at the same time leave the original number unaltered. -W. H. PEARSALL.

[dawn nelson]

I came across a sheet that was confusing over this issue. I made a note but it was corrected. I will try and refind it.

[dawn nelson]

This was it is this what you mean?http://herbariaunited.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7905

[David Price]

No. Here is an example (which I have now edited) - http://herbariaunited.org/specimen/293789/

[Chris Liffen]

Or perhaps this
http://herbariaunited.org/specimen/281764

[David Price]

Yes, that perfectly illustrates my previous state of confusion; how ironic that the spmn is one of Pearsall's!

It should now be clear that "Lake Lancashire" is not a body of water but an area forming part of vc 69.