232 LEAFLETS. 
2. “It is only from the fourth and the last lines of the diag- 
nosis that any clue can be had.” Very far from the truth. 
3 
3. “Supposing that Necker had the first edition of Linnaeus 
Species Plantarum, there are in it but two species of Rubus with 
simple leaves, R. odoratus and R. Chamaemorus.”? Also untrue. 
4.“Rubus Chamaemorus has many pistils and many drupelets.” 
Not so; for out of the 12 Linnaean Rubi, 9 have many drupelets, 
3 from very few to few, and Chamaemorus is one of these; not 
rarely with only 5 or 6 drupelets, though these few are large. 
5. “ Necker must, therefore, refer to this [second] edition, or 
else to the third, which is practically identical.” Certainly a 
most queer proposition to follow upon the very heels of the men- 
tion of Dalibarda, which Necker could never have quoted from 
any edition but the first! That proves that he had the first 
edition and quoted it. In it R. odoratus has precedence over 
both R. Chamaemorus and Moluccanus, which latter we are told 
is not in that first edition ! 
6. “Or else to some edition of the Systema, perhaps the 12th 
or 13th. In either case the problem becomes much more com- 
plicated, because in all of these there are not less than four 
species of Rubus with simple leaves.” All this not worth the 
space it takes in Torreya and here, since it is all deduction from 
quotations 2 and 3, both of which I here again pronounce utterly 
truthless. Mr. Rydberg will have to concede that all ground of 
bibliographic complication is forever removed, when he finds 
that in that book, glanced at all too hurriedly, all the simple- 
leaved Rubi hold places, odoratus the highest and Moluccanus 
the last and lowest. 
7. “R. Chamaemorus, * * certainly intended by Necker as 
a part at least of his Bossekia.” Wholly unwarranted statement. 
The character definitely excludes it. 
8. R. chamaemorus, * “the European species best known 
at the time.” Wholly irrelevant; because Chamaemorus can 
