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



E. Sprengelii Weihe (including the " b. Borreri Bell-Salt." of 

 Lond. Cat. ed. 8). No. in Set, 36. 36 v.-c. (2-5, 8-12, 3 6-18, 

 20, 24, 27, 34-39, 48, 49, 55, 57-59, 62-64, 69, 73, 74). 



El. MicANS Gren. & Godr. " i?. viUicaulis, h. adscitits Genex.," 

 Lond. Cat. ed. 8. No. in Set, 13. 23 v.-c. (1-6, 8-11, 17, 22, 35, 

 36, 38-40, 49, 52, 57, 58, 88, 107). I. Not equally well-marked in 

 all the counties named. The Derbyshire plant (Shirley) may even 

 prove to be something different. 



E. HiRTiFOLius Muell. & Wirtg. 10 v.-c. (9, 15, 27, 34, 36, 40, 

 47, 49, 86, 98). I. Very nearly allied to E. pyramidalis, and perhaps 

 only a subspecies or var. of it, but differing constantly in the much 

 laxer panicle and the ascending fruiting sepals. The leaves also 

 are usually not nearly so softly hairy and velvety to the touch 

 beneath ; nor have they the very compound toothing (with the 

 larger teeth patent or recurved) so frequent in R. pyramidalis. The 

 number of stalked glands is variable in both plants, but usually 

 abundant in our hirtifolius, which also has the leaflets more 

 rounded, with long acuminate point, so characteristic of my foreign 

 specimens of R. daniciis, which Dr. Focke now combines with R. 

 hirtifolius. 



E. PYRAMIDALIS Kalt. R. vuUjaris /3. umbrosus W. & N., R. G. 

 pp. 38, 39, t. 14. No. in Set, 37. 34 v.-c. (3-9, 11, 12, 14, 16-18, 

 22, 23, 27, 34-36, 38-40, 42-44, 48, 49, 55, 57, 58, 63, 96, 97, 

 105). I. [103]. Most of the British "7i. r//?iVn<^ts" of former 

 times belonged to this species. The form described in Journ. Bot. 

 1892, 223, as var. eifeliensis Wirtg. is omitted as being only a poor- 

 ground state of the type. 



E. LEucosTACHYS Sclileich. 65 v.-c. (1-25, 27, 30-50, 52-57, 

 59, 62-65, 67-71, 81, 107). I. Very variable, but seldom hard to 

 recognise. 



Var. b. gymnoslachys (Genev.). R. macrothyrsos Lange. No. in 

 Set, 14. 5 v.-c. (5, 9, 36, 44, 49). I follow Dr. Focke in con- 

 sidering these two names synonymous, and making them cover the 

 slender nearly eglandular Herefordshire form represented in *' the 

 Set" by No. 14, as well as the stronger form of the other four 

 counties, which is the "var. viacrothyrsus N. E. Br." of Enyl. Bot. 

 ed. 3, Suppl. 



Var. c. anqustifolius Eogers, Journ. Bot. 1892, 234. 13 v.-c. 

 (4, 6-9, 11, 17, 22, 23, 34-36, 48). Probably of hybrid origin {R. 

 leucostackys X rusticamis), but now so widely spread, and locally so 

 abundant as an independent plant, as to seem to claim a place in 

 our list. Many years ago pointed out to me by Mr. Briggs as a 

 remarkable " narrow-leaved leucostackys." 



The var. ''conspicuus (P. J. Miil'l.)" of Lond. Cat. ed. 8, is 

 omitted because Dr. Focke considers Mueller's plant to be a hybrid, 

 R. bi/rons x leucostackys, and R. bi/rons has not yet been found in 

 Britain. 



E. LASiocLADos Focke, Journ. But. 1894, 45 ; Syn. R. G. 198, 

 199. 4 v.-c. (15, 35, 36, 42). Apparently a frequent form in 

 Herefordshire and neighbouring counties ; but I do not yet know 

 how to distinguish it certainly from leucostackys hybrids. 



