372 NOTICES OF BOOKS. 



mistaldng of " simply a proliferous state of Trifolium rqjens " for a 

 monstrosity of Lotus major. It explains, too, what looks like a 

 wild confusion of names and opinions wlien the Euhi come to be 

 dealt with. "Tot homines quot sententi^e " rises in our mind 

 as we glance down the pages devoted to brambles ; but a closer 

 examination shows an agreement m many cases between authorities 

 such as Dr. Focke and Prof. Babington ; and as these eminent 

 men do not hesitate to differ when occasion demands, their con- 

 current determinations are especially satisfactory. Mr. Bennett 

 has done well to secure Dr. Focke's help, which gives the Keport a 

 special value. 



While so much confusion exists as to the plants themselves, it 

 is hardly to be expected that the nomenclature will be satisfactorily 

 established. We note that lluhus jn/ramidalis Bab. is placed by 

 Dr. Focke as a synonym of II. longitliyrsigcr Lees, there being an 

 earlier jyuramidalis of Kaltenbach. By the reference to "Babington, 

 Journal of Botany, 1878, p. 177," our own issue of that date is 

 intended, in which Prof. Babington points out the necessity of this 

 substitution. But we sought in vain for the name in Mr. Edwin 

 Lees' published writings upon Faibi, and at length found it in 

 Babington's 'British Eubi,' where '' R. longithyrsiger Lees! MS. 

 (184:9) " is cited under II. pi/raviidalis. The name, existing only in 

 MS. until printed as a synonym by Babington, is very properly 

 ignored by Nyman ; but it would seem that it must now take its 

 position as the name of the plant, owing to its publication in 

 ' Brit. Eubi.' The citation " R. lonrjithyrsu/er Lees " certainly is 

 very inconvenient, inasmuch as his published papers contain no 

 reference to it ; but if the publisher of the name be taken as the 

 authority and we read " li. longithyrsiger Bab.," we at once find it 

 in the index to ' British Kubi.' Our readers may remember that 

 this point was discussed at some length in this Journal for 1882 

 (pp. 53, 104, 173, 238).* 



The Koses are nearly as bad as the Ruhi ; fortunately botanists 

 are not a belligerent race, or the differences revealed in the fol- 

 lowing notes from the 1884 Eeport (which are interesting enoiigh to 

 reproduce) on two Eoses might lead to serious consequences : — 



* It seems doubtful whether R. suberectus Andei'son (Linn. Trans, xi. 218 

 (1815) should not give place to R. negsensis Hall (Trans. Boy. Soc. Edin. iii. 

 pt. i. 20 (1794). Anderson says his i^lant is " the same that was brought by Mr. 

 Hall from the banks of Loch Ness, and so accurately described by him," and 

 adds " the impropriety of Mr. Hall's specific name will, I hope, be a sufficient 

 excuse for my changing it." Prof. Babington says "it may reasonably be 

 doubted if R. yuherectus is the nesseiisia of Hall" (Brit. Kubi, p. 51) ; but he 

 does not seem to have seen Hall's specimens, and we do not know if these exist. 

 Anderson, however, seems to have had no doubt about the identity of the two, 

 and Smith (E. B. 2572) accepts his view. It may be noted that the " specimen 

 in the Banksian Herbarium, sent from four miles north-west from Manchester," 

 was forwarded to Banks by his protege George Caley, in whose handwriting is a 

 ticket further defining the locality as " a valley in Pembury." The specimen 

 from E. Forster's herbarium said by Prof. Babington to be "named by Ander- 

 son" (Brit. Eubi, 53) was named by Forster and confirmed by Smith (who 

 notes on Caley's specimen, " Seems Rubus conjlifoUus (Fl. Brit.) " : it was sent 

 by Anderson, but not named by him, so that it is not strictly a type. 



