1 86 ANNALS OF SCOTTISH NATURAL HISTORY 



position, and the older name, R. inicans, Gren. and Godr., is 

 adopted for it. 



R. villicaulis itself proves to be very rare with us, if, 

 indeed, we have the type (see " Journ. Bot," 1895, p. 49), 

 being only recorded for three vice -counties, East Ross and 

 West Sutherland in Scotland, and S. Devon in England. 

 The most widely distributed form of the aggregate species is 

 R. Selmeri, Lindeb., which is recorded for 46 vice-counties. 



R. grains, Focke, placed by Professor Babington under R. 

 villicaulis, and so quoted in the Supplement, is believed 

 by Dr. Focke to be one of the original species in the genus, 

 on account of its perfect pollen -grains, an exceptional 

 character among the Rubi. It has recently been recorded 

 for the Hebrides, the only vice-county north of the border. 



R. pyramidalis, Kalt. A much commoner plant than 

 the localities given in the Supplement would suggest. It 

 was, previously to the year 1886, constantly sent out and 

 recorded as R. villicaulis, Koehl., an error which necessitated 

 a fresh working-out of the distribution. It is now recorded 

 for thirty-four vice-counties, Inverness (East and West) and 

 West Ross being the only three at present in Scotland. 



" Var. Drejeri, Bab."- -The plant here intended was 

 referred to R. Drejeri, Jensen, in error, and has recently been 

 named R. Ley anus by the Rev. W. M. Rogers. The name 

 R. Purchasii, Bloxam, given as a synomyn by Mr. N. 

 E. Brown, cannot be adopted, since R. Purchasii proves to 

 be a Midland form of R. unicronatus, Blox. 



R. rubicolor, Blox. There is some doubt what this 

 plant is. It disappears from the list for the present. Mr. 

 N. E. Brown gives two localities : Mancetter, Warwickshire ; 

 and Howie Hill, near Ross, Herefordshire. As an illustra- 

 tion of the difficulty of clearing up an obscure bramble by 

 book-work without specimens, or even with specimens and 

 without adequate acquaintance with them, I may mention 

 that of my four sheets of the Howie Hill gatherings of this 

 plant, one is R. plicatns, W. and N. ! A second was 

 considered by Dr. Focke to be a shade form of R. gratus, 

 Focke. The other two sheets appear to be the same as the 

 last, and, if so, throw much doubt on Dr. Focke's conjecture. 



