scubamann's picture

Possible sedge

Observed: 28th April 2013 By: scubamannscubamann’s reputation in Plantsscubamann’s reputation in Plantsscubamann’s reputation in Plants
possible sedge or rush
maybe sedge

A clump of brownish flowers from a narrow round stem about 20cm tall. It has quite hairy flat leaves with no obvious central vein. It was growing in a well-wooded deep damp (but not boggy) valley/glen.
At first I thought this was probably a sedge but checking books the most likely was common clubrush - but that grows in water or very wet ground.
So I think it might be field wood-rush - though my book says despite it name it grows in open ground.

Species interactions

No interactions present.

Species with which Great Wood-rush (Luzula sylvatica) interacts


lavateraguy's picture

Luzula campestris ...

... is commonly a plant of short grassland (I see it as often as not in lawns); Luzula sylvatica is a plant of damp woodlands.

scubamann's picture

Luzula sp

It was the habitat that made me uncertain because my book said short grassland and mine was from thick wood, but then the picture of L sylvatica looks nothing like what we have here.

landgirl's picture

Luzula sylvatica

Sometimes plants don't read the books! Seriously, your photos do look exactly like L. sylvatica. Those hairy leaves and the large size are a dead giveaway.

scubamann's picture

Lazula sylvatica

Thanks landgirl,
I am happy to accept that. But as yet I can only go by the engravings/antique scrolls (mostly inherited from my mother) that I have. Generally they are reliable, if somewhat out of date regarding nomenclature. The papyrus records failed to deliver on this occasion.
I use i-spot mostly to try and access the 19th Century to bring me up to date.

cicuta58's picture

Luzula sylvatica

As lavateraguy says, Luzula sylvatica is typically a plant of woodland, often moist, so either you have misread your book or you should throw it away! Incidentally, I am puzzled as to how iSpot can help you with the 19th century.


scubamann's picture


I have accepted the identification of L.sylvatica. My problem was that my sample looked like the drawing of the Field wood-rush but the description said it was a plant of grassland, whereas the L.sylvatica was of damp woodland but looked nothing like my sample. The books are generally very good despite being old, and are still (mostly) relevant.
My comment about the books being ancient (as am I) was meant to be jocose, but I think it got mangled - I can't recall what I meant by it. Probably something along the lines of using I-spot to get me up to date from my ancient texts.