GENUS RUBUS IN SUPPL. TO " ENGLISH BOTANY 191 



R. corylifolius, Sm., var. conjugens (sic], Bab. I do not 

 know why Mr. Brown repeatedly gives this spelling of the 

 varietal name, unless there is some fascinating printer's error 

 in the original description. I have not access to the third 

 edition of Babington's Manual, but in the eighth edition, and 

 in " British Rubi," the author spells the word in the usual way. 

 A year or more ago Mr. O. Gelert identified specimens I sent 

 him of var. conjiingens, Bab., as R. cydopJiyllus, Lindeb., an 

 older name : an identification foreseen as probable by Pro- 

 fessor Babington ("Journ. Bot.," 1895, p. 105). Known for 

 seven Scottish vice-counties, viz. 74, 76, 86, 89, 91, 92, 100. 

 R. deltoideus, P. J. Mueller. Dr. Focke regards this name 

 as belonging to " a hybrid, R. ccesins x tomentosus, which we 

 cannot expect to find in Britain, where R. tomentosus is un- 

 known" (W.M. Rogers in "Journ. Bot," i 89 3, p. 42). Certainly 

 some of the miscellaneous British plants which have been 

 placed here look like Corylifolian hybrids ; and, on this 

 ground, the name disappears from the list in the " London 

 Catalogue," ed. 9. 



R. scabrosiis, P. J. Muell. Hybridity is rampant in this 

 group. Mr. Rogers has restored the name R. tuberculatus, 

 Bab., in place of R. scabrosus, which Dr. Focke thinks is 

 probably R. cashes x radula, and which is therefore omitted 

 from the revised British list. 



R. ccesius, Linn., var. pseudo-idaus, Weihe. The obser- 

 vation on this plant is limited to three lines only beyond 

 the references, but contains the following curiously inapt 

 quotation of a remark by Professor Babington : " Also a very 

 doubtful plant. Ours cannot be a hybrid, as we have not both 

 the supposed parents." After much pondering, I can see no 

 solution to this enigma, unless the quotation has got mis- 

 placed. The plant as I have found it is perfectly barren, 

 and combines the characters of R. idatus and R. ccesius 

 admirably. As an obvious hybrid between these two 

 parents, Mr. Rogers has omitted it, with the rest of the 

 Rubus hybrids, from the " London Catalogue " list. 



Following still the order in the Supplement to " English 

 Botany," I take the following from the " Doubtful Species," 

 as they come, at the close of the genus : 



