180 THE JOURNAL OP BOTANY 



1889, and I could not put these together as one species ; nor does 

 any single sheet seem to me identical with our plant, though the 

 two Minden sheets are near it. The figure of R. vulgaris (tab. xiv. 

 p. 38) in Eub. Germ, is also considerably unlike our R. Lindlei- 

 anus. So I am still unwilling to surrender our name for Weihe 

 & Nees' more aggregate one. 



As to R. Rogersii Linton, there is happily no longer room for 

 uncertainty. It is now accepted by Dr. Focke as a good " species," 

 and as (so far as is yet known) endemic in the British Isles, while 

 his R. mnmohius takes subordinate rank after it, as " R. 'pUccito et 

 a. Rogersii similis." In further differentiation of the German 

 plant he adds, " foliola multo majora quam in R. Rogersii, vix 

 plicata ; terminale in foliis quinatis cordato-suborbiculare vel 

 cordato-ovatum ; infima breviter petiolulata. Rami fertiles, 

 petioli pedunculique multo parcius aculeati quam in R. Rogersii. 

 Flores majores quam in R. jiUcato et R. Rogersii. Petala incurva, 

 i.e. e fundo patente ascendentia." Though thus distinct enough 

 from our plant, it is obviously allied to it. 



The above notes refer only to numbered " species " in our first 

 three groups. In addition to such species, we have eight well- 

 marked forms in these groups. In the London Catalogue these 

 are all entered as varieties, the plan of the Catalogue being to 

 class all the plants admitted into it as either species or varieties. 

 But it must not therefore be taken for granted that all these 

 "varieties" (either here or elsewhere) are necessarily of equal 

 value, i.e. as conspicuously distinct all from the species with 

 which they are placed. I have never thought them so certainly, 

 as I tried to show by dividing them into " sub-species " and 

 " varieties " in my Handbook of British Ruhi. These more or 

 less subordinate forms are not always easily traced in Ruhi 

 Europcei. This is partly due to the author's comparatively slight 

 acquaintance with some of them, only a few having been seen by 

 him when he visited England in 1889 and 1894 ; while he has not 

 always been kept duly supplied with dried specimens. Of those 

 in our first three groups, however, Briggsianus is the only one 

 which he seems not to have noticed. As to the rest, he suggests 

 no important change or rearrangement, except in the case of 

 Bertramii, which, apparently, he no longer accepts as British, 

 though I can find no discrepancies between his fuller description 

 and my short one in my Handbook of British Ruhi, p. 22, nor 

 between our plant and " Slesvig " specimens received from Mr. 

 Friderichsen. His R. 02)acus, however (a variety of R. nitidus in 

 the London Catalogue, but a sub-species in my Handbook), he 

 places as an independent but unnumbered form or species after 

 his R. ammobius, with the note added : " R. nitidus subsp. opacus 

 Rogers Handbook of British Ruhi, p. 23, ex mea sententia non 

 differt, quamvis R. opacus R. plicato magis affinis videtur quam 

 B. nitido." 



Thus far I have written as if our grouping fairly corresponded 

 with that adopted in Ruhi Europai. But, as I have stated above, 

 it does so only partially, even while we are considering the earlier 



