46 ON THE RUBI LIST IN 'LONDON CATALOGUE.' 



occur. These will be found enclosed in ordinary brackets ; the 

 numbers for such additional vice-counties as may have been 

 recorded, but for which further evidence seems desirable, being 

 also given afterwards, enclosed in square bracliets. As a further 

 help to the surer identification of each species and variety, the 

 number attached to the dried specimens which represent it in the 

 Set of British Rubi (1892-1895) now being issued will also be given 

 as "No. in Set" — so far as the first three fascicles distributed take 

 us. An added "I." will imply that I also know the plant to be 

 Irish. 



RuBus Id^us L. No. in Set, 51. 110 vice-counties (all except 

 1 and 45). I. 



Var. b. ohtiisifolins Willd. (1811). R. idaeus anonialus Arrh. 

 (1839). B. Leesii Bab. (1846). No. in Set, 1. 14 v.-c. {viz., 4, 5, 

 9, 15, 22, 2.S, 36, 88, 49, 57, 69, 72, 85, and "Perth"). On the 

 name see Dr. Focke's note in Journ. Bot. 1877, 369. Koehler's 

 specimens of this plant (Bromberg, June, 1869), No. 32 of Dr. 

 Focke's Rubi Selecti {" B. idaeus L. var. annmalns Arrhen. R. Leesii 

 Babingt."), are clearly identical with tlie British form. 



Var. c. asperrimvs Lees. 1 v.-c. (11). Abundant in Alum Chine, 

 Bournemouth (where it was pointed out to me by the Rev. E. F. 

 Linton), and likely to occur in many counties. This alone of the 

 several varieties described in Eufi. Bot. 3rd ed. Suppl. (including 

 the ^' rotunilifdlins Bab." of Loud. Cat. ed. 8) seems worth dis- 

 tinguishing. 



R. Fissus Lindh No. in Set, 26. 40 v.-c. (4, 6, 9, 11, 14-16, 

 18, 22, 23, 34, 35, 38-40, 42, 43, 46-49, 52, 57, 58, 60. 62, 63, QQ, 

 69, 70, 75, 86, 88, 90, 91, 96, 97, 105, 106, 111). [3, 50, 54, 55, 

 64, 72, 73, 87, 92, 98, 99] . L Considerably more frequent than 

 the next species, I think; but formerly much confused with poor- 

 ground forms of B. plicatus. 



R. suBERECTUs Auders. No. in Set, 52. 81 v.-c. (2-6, 8, 9, 11, 

 17, 22, 84-36, 38, 40-48, 46-50, 56, 58, 64, 69, 73, 86, 96, 97). 

 [10, 12, 14, 20, 37, 39, 53-55, 57, 58, 63, 65, 70, 72, 74, 76, 81, 87, 

 89, 90, 92, 98] . I. Like Prof. Babington {Brit. Bubi, p. 51), 

 I find myself unable to accept the suggestion that the name suh- 

 erectus should give place to B. nessensis Hall. In the absence of all 

 specimens of Hall's plant (at Edinburgh, as at S. Kensington and 

 Kew) his description would be quite inadequate to establish the 

 identity of the two, even if, meagre as it is, it did not contain one 

 character, "petiolis canaliculatis," which belongs to ,^ss!<s, as dis- 

 tinguished from suherertHs. The value of Anderson's testimony is 

 destroyed by the fact that he knew nothing of B. Jissus, which was 

 not described until twenty years later. 



R. suLCATus Vest. No. in Set, 2. 9 v.-c. (3, 4, 9, 22, 86, 48, 

 69, 70, and "Perth"). 



R. PLICATUS W. & N. 44 v.-c. (2-6, 9-12, 14, 16, 17, 21, 22, 

 25-28, 34-36, 38-43, 46-49, 52, 57, 59, 62, 88, 92, 96-98, 102, 

 105-107). [13, 15, 18, 20, 89, 55, 58, 63-65, 67, 69, 70, 72, 74, 

 81,87,89-91,100]. I. 



