GENUS RUBUS IN SUPPL. TO "ENGLISH BOTANY 183 



sort of claim to specific rank, then R. idceus, L., van anomalus, 

 Arrh., is the right designation. 



R. nessensis, Hall. This name is resuscitated to replace 

 R. snberectus, Anders., in spite of what Professor Babington 

 wrote (" Brit. Rubi," p. 51). Hall's description is there quoted 

 to show its inadequacy ; in the absence of specimens to 

 illustrate it one cannot be sure whether R. suberectus or R, 

 fissus was intended ; and consequently this is by no means 

 a case for dropping a generally accepted name in favour of 

 a supposed prior one. 



R. annnobius, Focke ? It is a pity that half a page 

 should have been wasted over a species which has no claim 

 even yet to be considered British. Professor Babington's 

 hesitating remarks should have shown how very uncertain 

 the identification was. The description quoted might have 

 been of some value if it were a translation of Dr. Focke's. 

 We are not told whether it is so ; but it seems to be a descrip- 

 tion of the plant of the island in the River Tay, near Perth, 

 which was thought to be aininobiiis, and which Mr. Rogers 

 now tells me is R. Rogersii, Linton. 



R. affinis, W. and N. No mention is made, as might 

 have been expected, of the general mistake in the past as to 

 the identity of this bramble. Up to the year 1886, if not 

 later, the plant most commonly issued as R. affinis was the 

 plant now recognised as R. villicaulis, Koehl., var. Selmeri 

 (Lindeb.), which after that date was sometimes spoken of as 

 " our North Country affinis" All previous records of R. 

 affinis need to be verified. 



" R. Bakeri, Lees."- -If this prove to be a species, it should 

 stand " R. Bakeri, F. A. Lees," its author not being the same 

 as the author of R. longitJiyrsiger. But it is desirable that 

 further material should be gathered for study. Accompany- 

 ing the only authentic sheets I have seen of " R. Bakeri " 

 were some notes from which it appeared that Professor Bab- 

 ington had suspected a mixture of specimens. The same 

 idea occurred to me independently, from an examination of 

 the specimens. A Barnes Common plant is referred to as 

 probably identical with the Yorks plant ; but this suggestion 

 is founded only on Professor Babington's surmise that it was 



