ON THE KUBI LIST IN 'LONDON CATALOGUE,' ED. 9. 105 



g. fascicrilatus (P. J. Muell.). As var. of R. conjli,folii(s Sm. in 

 Lond. Cat. ed. 8; in Journ. Bot. 1893, 41; and in No. 50 of Set. 

 21 v.-c. (6, 10, 18, 28, 26, 28, 29, 31, 3G-4U, 48, 50, 55, 57, 62, 64, 

 89, 100). I. [22, 35, 63]. Here again, as in the case of tuber- 

 culatus, there has been, I beUeve, a mixture of different plants. 

 But what I suppose to be the type (represented by No. 50 of 8et) is 

 best placed under U. dumctoruw. 



R. coRYLiFOLius Sm. 74 v.-c. (2-15, 17, 18, 20-41, 43, 45, 46, 

 49-52, 55-59, 62-66, 69-71, 78, 74, 76, 86, 88, 89, 91, 92, 94, 96, 

 100, 104, 106, 107, 109, 110). In an aggregate sense, as given 

 here, perhaps not absent from any county. 



a. sublustris (Lees). 52 v.-c. (2-15, 17, 20-23, 25-30, 32-88, 

 40, 45, 51, 52, 55, 57, 58, 62, 64, 65, 69, 71, 73, 74, 88, 89, 91, 92, 

 94, 104). I. 



b. cijclopJiijUus Lindeb. ; conjuufjens Bab. Land, Cat. ed. 8. 

 42 v.-c. (2, 4, 6-10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 21-23, 26, 29, 30, 32, 34-38, 

 40, 45, 46, 49, 52, 56-59, 62, 64, 74, 76, 86, 89, 91, 92, 100). I. 

 Prof. Babington told me in 1892 that he thought his name con- 

 hmgens would have to give place to Lindeberg's cyclophijUus, and 

 this opinion has lately been expressed independently by Mr. Gelert, 

 of Copenhagen. 



R. Balfourianus Blox. No. in Set, 75. 38 v.-c. (2-9, 11, 

 15-17, 20-24, 26, 30, 32-38, 40, 42, 52, 54, 57, 58, 62-64, 69, 81, 

 89). I. The Danish K. ciliatus Lindeb., beautiful specimens of 

 which I have received from Mr. Gelert and from Dr. Elmqvist, seems 

 to me practically identical with our plant. Both those botanists give 

 as synonyms on their labels R. divergens Neum. and R. Balfourianus 

 Aresch., Some Observations, p. 60. 



R. ciEsius L. 62 v.-c. (2-12, 14-18, 21-29, 31-42, 46, 48-55, 

 57-60, 62-66, 69, 70, 74, 80, 86, 91, 109). I. I have enumerated 

 all the vice-counties for which I have records; but anything like an 

 exhaustive search would no doubt yield a higher number than even 

 the 68 of Loud. Cat. ed. 8. 



I still think the following "varieties" ill-defined and most 

 unsatisfactory. For their synonymy, &c., see Journ. Bot. 1886, 

 236 ; 1893, 42 ; and E^uj. Bot. 8rd ed. Suppl. 122-124 :— 



a. aquatit'us W. & N. 9 v.-c. (2, 8, 14, 17, 23, 36, 38, 52, 57). 



b. tenuis Bell-Salt. 12 v.-c. (7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17, 31, 36, 38, 

 57-59). [16] . 



c. arve?tsis Wallr. 13 v.-c. (2, 3, 6, 10, 21, 23, 34-36, 38, 57, 

 GQ, 80). 



d. intermedius Bab. 5 v.-c. (23, 34-36, 38). [14] . 



e. hisindm W. &. N. 2 v.-c. (6, 36). [49] . 



R. PSEUDO-iD.Eus (Lej.) is evidently R. cacsius x idaeiis, and is 

 therefore omitted. 



R. saxatilis L. 67 v.-c. (2-4, 6, 33-35, 37, 39-43, 48-50, 54, 

 67, 59, 60, 62-77, 79-81, 83, 85-112). I. 



R. Cham^morus L. 36 v.-c. (47, 48, 51, 57, 59, 60, 63-70, 

 77-80, 83, 86-94, 96-98, 105-109). L 



Other species and varieties occurring in the Lond. Cat. ed. 8 list, 

 but not referred to in the foregoing notes, have been omitted 



