NOTES ON UR. focke's rubi europ^i 205 



longe acuminata, in Acre patentia in fructu reflexa ; stamina 

 stylis multo breviora. Fruticem vidi unicum baud procul ab 

 Oxford Britanniae)." I can throw no light on this note, such as 

 seems necessary before the name can be admitted into our list. 

 Some of the other more difficult plants in our " middle and 

 collective group " Egregii come in for original and interesting 

 treatment. 



Thus under R. mucronatus Blox. (p. 189) we find the note : 

 " Occurrunt vero, praecipue in Britannia media et meridionali, 

 formai complures ambiguae, qute bine inde species constantes 

 aemulantur, praecipue : — 



" B. mucronatus var. mulicauUs Rogers Handb. Brit. Rub. 

 (1900) 56, efc formae copiosius aculeolatae : ? B. oigocladus (cit. 

 Muell. et Lefvr.) Rogers I. c. 65 ; non Muell. et Lefvr. ex Sudre. 



" ? i?. Newbouldii (cit. Babingt.) Rogers I. c. 66. 



" B. Bloxamianus Golem, ex Rogers I. c. 66. 



" B. regillus A. Ley Journ. Bot. 1896 p. 217 ; Rogers I. c. 67. 



" Omnes h» plantae accuratius vivae et in locis natalibus 

 examinandae sunt." 



But after many years' study of these plants, living and dried, 

 I am confirmed in my conviction that all of them, except my var. 

 niidicaulis, are really best placed where they are found in my 

 Handbook and in London Catalogue, ed. x., among (not Egregii 

 but) Eu-Badulce. As for my nudicaulis — an abundant and very 

 constant plant throughout S. Dorset and S. Hants, and reaching 

 I. Wight and S. Wilts — there seems no room for doubt that its 

 closest relation is to B. mucronatus, though it keeps quite dis- 

 tinct from that type. 



Next we find, on p. 190, as an example of " Formae et pro- 

 species B. mucronato affines " : — 



" B. Briggsii Blox. in Journ. Bot. vii. p. 33 (1869) teste Archer 

 Briggs Fl. Plymouth p. 125, qui B. Briggsii varietatem B. fusco- 

 atri (ex sensu Briggsiij esse dicit. B. fusco-ater (cit. Weihe), 

 Briggs Fl. Plym. p. 124. B. oigocladus (cit. P. J. Muell. et 

 Lefvre?) Rogers Handb. Brit. Rub. p. 65." 



This seems a wholly unsatisfactory arrangement. We clearly 

 cannot accept B. Briggsii as the name for our widely distributed 

 and locally common plant, the " B. oigocladus Muell. & Lefv. '? " 

 of my Handbook and of London Catalogue, ed. x. Dr. Focke's 

 explanation is as follows : — " Bloxamii B. fusco-ater (secund. 

 specim. exsicc.) planta erat B. fusco-atri Weihei similis. Jure 

 igitur auctor B. fusco-atrum Briggsii nomine novo salutavit. 

 Briggsius specimen a Bloxamio nominatum a suo (falso) B. fusco- 

 atro distinguere conatus est et demum sub titulo levis varietatis 

 segregavit. Bloxamius vero non unicum specimen sed integram 

 speciem nominare voluit." But in Fi. Plym. p. 124, Briggs gives 

 " b. Briggsii " as a " very rare " " variety " of his " B. fusco-ater 

 Weihe," and states definitely that whereas " Bloxam maintained 

 that it was a distinct species " he " preferred to consider it a 

 variety of B. fusco-ater, as does Professor Babington." I may 

 add that Briggs left me all his Bubus specimens, and that I still 



