ON THE RUBI LIST IN 'LONDON CATALOGUE,' ED. 9. 79 



Var. b. Schlechtendalii (Weilie). 31 v.-c. (2-6, 10, 13, 17, 20, 

 22, 23, 25, 27, 35-38, 40, 42, 46, 48, 49, 52, 55-57, 62, 84, 96, 93, 

 100). I. 



Var. c. viacrojihijlluides (Genev.) ? Jonrn. Bot. 1892,205; Genev. 

 Ess. Moil. p. 172. 3 v.-c. (34, 35, 40). The W. Glost. (Hudnai^s, 

 Shoolhred) and Salop (Pulverbacb, Benson) plants are very like each 

 other, and apparently very near my Tintern (Monm.) specimens. 

 Dr. Focke now tells me that he considers Genevier's plant "a mere 

 form of /i. Schlechtendalii" ; but I hardly think that he would say 

 this of ours, which may perhaps want another name. 



Var. d. ainplificatus (Lees). No. in Set, 33. 18 v.-c. (5, 18, 

 22, 25, 27, 32, 33, 35-39, 55, 57, 62, 63, 72, 100). I. I have seen 

 specimens from very few of the vice-counties, and am far from 

 being satisfied that I yet know Lees's plant. 



The var. i/labratus Bab. has been transferred to R. neinoralis 

 P. J. Muell. (see above) ; and var. devonlensis Focke MS. is omitted, 

 as Dr. Focke now associates it with a Carnarvonshire plant not yet 

 published. Pi. mijrlcte Focke and its var. virescens are also omitted, 

 because Dr. Focke, now that he has seen the Monmouthshire plants 

 growing, is no longer fully satisfied with his former naming of 

 them. 



R. MOLLissiMus Rogers, Jonrn. Bot. 1894, 45. 4 v.-c. (4, 9, 17, 

 108). I. [3] . Last August I showed the living plant in Surrey to 

 Dr. Focke, and he thought it unknown on the Continent. 



R. Salteri Bab. No. in Set, 35. 3 v.-c. (10, 36, 55). Our 

 difficulties here are still considerable. So far as I know. Prof. 

 Babington has never definitely accepted as "the typical B. Salteri 

 Bab." any plant except that from Apse Castle Wood, I. of Wight 

 (see Brit. Riibi, p. 132). But it would seem from the B. E. C. Ilepts. 

 1887 (p. 173) and 1888 (p. 207) that he acquiesced in Dr. Focke's 

 suggestion of the name for Mr. Ley's Aconbary (Heref.) plant 

 (No. 35 in the Set), which I saw growing in great quantity last 

 Sept. Just before that, I had seen in the herb, in Shrewsbury 

 Museum Bloxam's specimen from " near Kirkby, Leic," and had 

 thought it rightly named. But I am far from being able to say 

 that the plants from these three counties are certainly identical ; 

 and I know of no other counties in which the species has been 

 found. The B. calratns Blox., formerly placed here, and now 

 transferred to R. villicaulis as a var., does seem to occupy a some- 

 what intermediate position between the two species. 



R. QuESTiEKii Lefvr. & Muell. No. 6 in Set (" iZ. eri/thrinns," 

 but such specimens only as are labelled from "Bailie Gate, Dorset"). 

 8 v.-c. (3, 5, 9). [4]. 



R. CoLEMANNi Blox. In Kirby, El. Leic. p. 38. No. in Set, 12. 

 4 v.-c. (11, 17, 55, 58). [3. I.]. Discovered in a second Surrey 

 locaHty, Cutt Mill, Puttenham, by Rev. E. S. Marshall and Di-. 

 Focke last August. Mr. Baguall has stated in bis El. Warw. 

 (p. 76) that the two Warwickshire stations are now destroyed. 

 The Thirsk plant {Journ. Hot. 1886, 221) may, I suppose, be 

 certainly accepted as R. Borminus Genev., and so not B, C'ole- 

 manni. 



