1 84 ANNALS OF SCOTTISH NATURAL HISTORY 



" probably hamulosus " ; and Mr. N. E. Brown makes " R. 

 Bakeri, Lees," synonymous with R. nitidus, var. hamulosus, 

 Bab. 



R. Maassii, Focke. It is a pity that this name and R. 

 Mttenteri, Marss., which follows next, should have received 

 any further circulation by the " E. B." Supplement. These 

 two names represent slightly differing forms of the bramble 

 which has been most familiar to us under the name of R. 

 uinbrosus ; and that again is scarcely separable by any con- 

 stant characters from R, piilcJierrimus, Neum. ( = R. poly- 

 antJiemus, Lindeb.). 



R. amphicJiloros, P. J. Mueller, was a name given by Dr. 

 Focke to a Derbyshire form, and soon withdrawn by him. 



R. ramosus, Bloxam. The Devon plant was described 

 by Briggs, not Bloxam, and is R. ramosus, Briggs. The 

 Warwick plant, which was confused with it by Rev. A. 

 Bloxam, has more recently been described as a species by 

 Mr. J. E. Bagnall under the name R. merticus ("Journ. 

 Bot," 1892, p. 372). 



R. ulmifolius, Schott. Dr. Focke does not appear to 

 retain this name ("Journ. Bot," 1890, pp. 129, 130), acknow- 

 ledging that it may have been used in a more aggregate 

 sense. R. fruticosus, L., might be taken as the oldest aggre- 

 gate name, but for sake of precision R. rusticanus, Merc., 

 will no doubt continue to be preferred. 



R. leucostac/iys, Schleicher, var. macrothyrsus, N. E. 

 Brown. We have issued this Carnarvonshire plant in our 

 set of British Rubi under this name, as a very glandular 

 form of the R. leucostacJiys aggregate. If it is, as the Rev. 

 W. M. Rogers thinks, an extreme form of R. macrothyrsos, 

 Lange, it will be known by the older name R. gymno- 

 stachys, Genev., which Mr. Rogers places as a var. under R. 

 leucostacJiys. 



R. leucostachys, var. Borceanus, N. E. Brown. Compre- 

 hensive an aggregate as R. leucostachys, Schleich., may be, 

 it is stretching a point to place R. Borceanus, Genev., under 

 it as a variety. Mr. Rogers has well remarked of it, " When 

 dry, looking a good deal like R. leucostachys, though differing 



