On the KUBI list in 'LONDON catalogue,' ED. 9. 101 



R. MUTABiLis Genev. Jo urn. />of. 1892, 336 (for type and var. b.). 

 No. in Set, 44. 4 v.-c. (5, 6, 13, 17). [21 and "Cleves, Yorks."] . 



Var. b. nemorosus Genev. No. in Set, 69. 1 v.-c. (3). 



R. Bloxamii Lees. No. in Set, 20. 16 v.-c. (3, 8-11, 17, 22, 

 23, 37, 38, 40, 49, 55, 63, 64, 66). I. [21, 61] . 



R. scaber W. & N. 13 v.-c. (3, 5, 6, 15, 17, 22, 23, 34-36, 38, 

 39, 57). I. [4, 11, 13, 16, 19-21, 29, 33, 37, 40, 49, 55, 62]. 

 Still vei'y imperfectly known to most of us. 



R. oBscuRus Kait. B. E. C. Rep. 1893, 408 (first paragraph). 

 2 v.-c. (7, 36). Not the plant referred to in B. E. C. Rep. 1890, 

 295, and described in Journ. Bot. 1892, 339, under this name. 

 That will be found below, under R. rosaceus, as var. Pnrcliasianus. 

 The true obscurus is nearer to R. leucost((chijs and R. pyramidalis, but 

 much more glandular, with sepals patent after flowering, and petals 

 " vivid pink." 



R. Fuscus W. & N. Jonrn. Bot. 1892, 303 (for type and var. b.). 

 No. in Set, 18 (not always well represented). 18 v.-c. (6, 8, 16, 

 18, 22, 23, 27, 31, 34-38, 40, 50, 55, 57, 65). I. [3, 17j . Still 

 a very aggregate species, as understood among us. 



Var. b. nutans Rogers. 3 v.-c. (11, 16, 38). 



Var. c. macrostachys (P. J. Muell.). 3 v.-c. (22, 36, 58). I. 

 The E. Norfolk /((sc»s (N. Walsham, BJ. F. Linton) approaches this 

 form, which has a somewhat more pyramidal panicle than the 

 typical plant, with remarkably hairy rachis, and leaves white-felted 

 beneath. 



R. PALLiDus W. & N. Journ. Bot. 1886, 308; 1892, 304. No. in 

 Set, 67. 16 v.-c. (3, 4, 6, 11, 16, 23, 27, 28, 30, 35, 36, 38, 40, 43, 

 58, 62). 



R. Lintoni Focke, Journ. Bot. 1887, 82. 2 v.-c. (6, 27). 



R. THYRsiGER Bab. (as var. oi R. Bloxamii in Lond. Cat. ed. 8); 

 Journ. Bot. 1892, 805 (/?. rhenanus P. J. Muell.?). 4 v.-c. (2-4, 

 14). [5, "Dulverton, only once found, 1890," Pi. P. Murray]. It 

 is necessary to restore Prof. Babington's name to this splendid 

 plant (until another not open to objection can be found), because 

 I learn from Dr. Focke that "rhejianus" was never described by 

 Mueller, who published the name only (about 1862), and that as a 

 synonym for Wirtyen's thyrsijiorus. 



R. LONGiTHYRsiGER Bab. R. lonyithyrsifjer Lees, Lond. Cat. ed. 8 ; 

 but see Journ. Bot. 1885, 372. No. in Set, 25. 12 v.-c. (1-5, 16, 

 84-37, 49, 69). [38] . 



R. FOLiosus W. & N. It', jlexuosus M. & L. Lond. Cat. ed. 8 ; 

 Journ. Bot. 1892, 334. No. in Set, 43. 32 v.-c. (2-6, 9, 11-18, 

 20-26, 34-40, 46, 55, 57, 62). I. 



R. ROSACEUS (sp. collect.), Journ. JhA. 1892, 837 (for a, b, e, 

 and f). 51 v.-c. (1-18, 20-27, 33-36, 39-42, 44, 46, 48, 49, 55, 

 57, 58, 62-65, 67-69, 88, 89, 97). I. It is in a very aggregate 

 sense only that the name rosaceus can be rightly applied to most of 

 our plants that have received it. 



a. R. rosaceus W. & N. R. G. p. 85, t. 86. No. in Set, 21. 

 8 v.-c. (8, 5, 88). 



b. var. hystrix (W. & N.), /?. G, p. 92, t. 41. 84 v.-c. (2-7, 



