Rydberg: Notes on Rosaceae 119 



floriis (Nutt.) Rydb., was a misnomer, for the species has one of 

 the largest flowers found in the whole tribe. Nuttall's specimens 

 from Lake Huron must have had unusually small flowers, and 

 probably Nuttall compared it with R. odoratiis L., its nearest 

 relative, but the specific name parviflonis was under all circum- 

 stances an unhappy selection. Ruhus nutkanus Moc. is the name 

 which has usually been applied to this species. It may, however, 

 belong to Riihacer tomentosus, which is perhaps more common on 

 the Nootka Sound. There is little to say about the other synonyms 

 given under this species, except Rubus Roezli Regel, which does not 

 belong here but to Oreobatus deliciosus, as the figure in Gartenflora 

 shows. 



Heller took up the name Rubacer velutimis for R. tomentosus 

 Rydb., which he based on R. velutinus Hook., an untenable name, 

 being preoccupied by R. vehitinus Vest. 



OREOBATUS 



This name was not based on the subgeneric name Orobatus 

 Focke (meaning the same, but not properly formed) as I had over- 

 looked the same, but this fact does not invalidate it as a generic 

 name. 



Dr. Otto Kuntze reduces the whole genus to varieties of Rubus 

 odoratus L. It shows how superficial he was, paying in this case 

 attention only to leaf-forms and not to the structure of the flower 

 and fruit. Professor A. Nelson fell into the same error, but in 

 less degree, when he made Oreobatus deliciosus a species of Bos- 

 sekia. There are only two alternatives in this case. Either 

 Oreobatus and Rubacer (Bossekia) must be regarded as distinct 

 genera or else both retained in Rubus. 



Oreobatus neomexicanus (A. Gray) Rydb. {Rubus neomexi- 

 canus A. Gray) has often been regarded as a variety or even as a 

 synonym of 0. deliciosus. I think, however, that it is well dis- 

 tinct. 



Oreobatus rubicundus was lately described by Wooton and 

 Standley. It is closely related to 0. neomexicanus, but has 

 smaller leaves, flowers and fruit, and nearly glabrous leaves. 

 The pubescence on the petioles is appressed. I have seen no 

 specimens of this except those cited in the original publication. 



