278 
Rubus setosus, Bigel. Fl. Bost. Ed. 2, 198 (1824). R. hispidus, _ 
var. setosus, T. & G. Fl. N. A. i. 456 (1840). 2. Aispidus, var. 
suberectus, Peck, Ann. Rep. State Bot. N. Y. for 1890, 31 
(1891). 
I have recently had my attention directed to this plant by the 
examination of some of Prof. Charles H. Peck’s material from 
Northern New York. He, in collecting it, saw at once that it was 
different from any of the ordinary Ruéz, and being unaware of Dr. 
Bigelow’s previous description of it as a species, proposed it as a 
variety of R. hispidus as cited above, a position which had been 
earlier maintained by Torrey and Gray. The plant is strikingly - 
different in appearance and habit from R. hispidus, being much 
stouter, larger leaved, suberect or ascending, the older wood most 
densely clothed with slender, stiff, slightly reflexed bristles, and i 
have no evidence that it is evergreen. Its range, as I now know 
it, is from Quebec to Southern New York and Pennsylvania, as the 
following citations of localities will indicate: Quebec (according 
to Bigelow); Thetford Center, Vt. (Jesup); Morehouseville, 
Caroga, Lake Pleasant and Brown Tract, Adirondack moun- 
tains, N. Y. (Peck); near Riverdale, New York City (Bick- 
nell); Sudbury, Mass. (Bigelow); Cambridge, Mass. (Nuttall); 
Pocono Plateau, Penna. (Britton). The flowers as indicated by 
Dr. Bigelow’s and Mr. Bicknell’s specimens are small. The fruit 
is reddish-black and about 1 cm. high. The leaflets are mostly 
acute or short-acuminate, generally 5 on the leaves of the sterile 
shoots and 3 on the flowering branches, short-petiolulate or se¢s- 
sile. 
Rubus villosus, Ait. var. humifusus, T. & G. Fl. N. A. i. 455 (1849). 
R. Canadensis, var. invisus, Bailey, Am. Gard. xii. 83 (1891). | 
Some two years since, when Prof. L. H. Bailey was engaged 
in studying the Rudi which have been brought into cultivation - 
for their fruits, he asked my opinion of the plant here alluded to, — 
based on the specimens which had served as the type of the de- 
scription, and other material’which he at that time submitted. | 
examined the specimens and reached the conclusion, in which he. 6 
subsequently concurred after seeing them, that it was all referable ee 
to R. Canadensis, L. I had not then seen the plant growing: 
Since then I have observed it growing in several places, and numer- 
