97 



NOTES ON ENGLISH EUBL 

 By W. 0. Focke, M.D. 



Considering the great number of European Rubi hitherto 

 described, our knowledge of the genus ought to be very complete. 

 There will be, however, little doubt about the fact that exactly the 

 contrary is the case. Specimens that cannot be named by the best 

 authorities are of frequent occurrence. In the year 1857, when I 

 began the study of brambles, we possessed, besides forty or fifty 

 synonyms and incomplete sketches, less than a hundred descriptions 

 of European Rubi deserving regard. Since that time botanists 

 have done much work in the genus, and the mean annual pro- 

 duction of new species may have amounted to fifty or sixty, or 

 more. In this way the industry of botanical writers has given 

 us more tban 2000 names of European brambles. Perhaps the 

 variety of these plants may be great enough for establishing such 

 an astonishing number of different kinds — I dare not say species, a 

 term which would be not quite adequate, even in its Jordanian 

 meaning. If, however, considering the manifoldness of Nature, the 

 facts would involve perhaps no serious objection to the real 

 existence of much more than a thousand so-called species, there 

 can be no doubt that the limited capacities of the human mind 

 would not permit a clear distinction of such a multitude of closely- 

 allied forms. A student of our brambles will be able to catch, 

 during the first summer, the distinctive marks of about twenty 

 species. After some years he may become acquainted with 60, or 

 100, or even more European brambles; but then it will be very 

 difficult, if not quite impossible, for him to distinguish every year 

 twenty new forms more, and to keep them separate from all the 

 other species he already knows. But if we admit he would be able 

 to do this, it must be nevertheless a hopeless attempt to follow the 

 rapid progress of the pretended science describing year after year 

 about sixty new species. 



It is a general rule in science that every one who proposes a new 

 species must distinguish it from all related forms hitherto known. 

 At present, in the case of the European Rubi, the most accomplished 

 erudition cannot comprehend more than perhaps a tbird or fourth 

 part of all described " species." The most ignorant beginner 

 tberefore may fancy that no great difference exists between him 

 who knows scarcely more than nothing, and the best authorities, 

 who know not very much. AVhy should he not give new names, as 

 many others have done before him ? 



The practice of fabricating the mentioned abundance of new 

 names has been a continental folly. For a long time really scientific 

 men like Prof. Babington and Mr. J. G. Baker have been the 

 leading English rubologists, and their authority has been great 

 enough to prevent all attempts at following the example of P. .1. 

 Mueller, Gandoger, and others. 



Every one who has been occupied in the study of Rubi knows 

 very well that neither the perusal of descriptions nor the comparison 



Journal of Botany. — Vol. 28. [April, 1890.] n 



