370 SHOKT NOTES. 



A comparison under the microscope, side by side with typical 

 specimens of N. nidijica from the Baltic, named by Profs. I3raun 

 and Nordstedt, has failed to disclose the least difl'ereuce between 

 them. The nucules examined by Braun must have been quite 

 immature ones, which are the most numerous on the specimen, but 

 there are a few which appear to have attained their full growth ; 

 and these are neither smaller nor more contorted than those of iV. 

 nidijic<t, and appear to be only 7-8striate, as in N. nidijica, not 

 10-striate, as stated." Now, the only meaning we can attach to 

 this is that the writer imagined that Braun did not know immature 

 nucules when he saw them, otherwise it could not have been 

 assumed that he must have examined " quite immature ones,', 

 when there were, on the same specimen, some which appeared to 

 have attained their full growth. It will be clearly seen that we 

 were referring to Mr. Brown's manner of writing, and not (as Mr. 

 Bolfe assumes) to the facts dealt with, or we should have pointed 

 out the impossibility of "quite immature" nucules showing more 

 striae than full-grown ones. By the reference to the difference 

 between A', (jiomerata and N. nidijica it is evident that Mr. Kolfe 

 does not understand the question at issue — Braun distingv;ished the 

 Lough Neagh plant (forma intermedia) from typical N. nidijica, and 

 Mr. Brown (not having Prof. Braun's experience in examining 

 Chai'as) could not see the difference ; and so, as in other cases, he 

 unhesitatingly discarded Braun's conclusions in a manner that we 

 considered both oft'hand and egotistic. With regard to the N. 

 Smithii, we certainly should not have considered Mr. Brown's 

 overlooking the nucules inexcusable had he not stated that he had 

 "very carefully examined" the specimen, and could not find even 

 "a trace of a nucule." — Henry & James Groves. 



Notes on British Eubi.— Mr. J. G. Baker, on looking over the 

 unnamed brambles in the British Museum Herbarium, has called 

 my attention to the following rare forms collected by me a few 

 years ago : — Bubus hemistemo7i Mull. Foot of a stone wall, Maes-y- 

 brynor, Dolgelley, Merionethshire. This species is only previously 

 recorded from the counties of North Devon, AVarwick, Cardigan, 

 and Aberdeen. — Irl. (near incnrvatm). Koadside near St. Dogmells, 

 Pembroke, August, 1882. This plant is identical with that alluded 

 to in Mr. Baker's Flora of the Lake District, under 11. rhaninifuliiis 

 (p. 81), as occurring at Watermillock and near Ulleswater and 

 Haweswater. • — E. saltunmi'oclie [li. 6^»»;/(tvi of British botanists). 

 On the banks of the Wye, at the foot of the Scaur, Moccas, Here- 

 fordshire. In Samuel Dale's collection there is a specimen of 

 R. thyrsoideus Bell., labelled " Bulnis Morns Merret, Pin. lOG, said by 

 Dr. Merret to grow at Sutton, in Essex, Avherethoy call it Mulberry 

 Bramble." This makes it clear what form was intended by Merret 

 under this name. — H. N. Ridley. 



