NOTES ON DR. FOCKE's RUBI EUROP.EI 207 



possible relation to it, as the alliance is such that at first they 

 were not distinguished from it. 



As regards the plants which make up our groups Sub- 

 Koehleriani and Sub-Bellardiani, Dr. Focke's treatment of them 

 hardly calls for comment here except perhaps in two instances — 

 phyllo thyrsus and cavatifolius. Of var. x>hyllothyrsus (Frider.) 

 — under B. Bahingtonii Bell Salt. — he now writes : " B. phyllo- 

 thyrsiis Friderichsen, quern Eogers varietatis titulo sub B. Bahing- 

 tonii describit, ex mea sententia, nil nisi B. chlorothyrsus est. 

 Planta anglica sic nominata parum a B. Bahingtonii differre 

 videtur." It evidently must not be concluded from this that in 

 Dr. Focke's opinion his B. chlorothyrsus is a near ally of our 

 B. Bahingtonii, seeing that he describes them in different groups, 

 with fifty-six pages between them ; but his contention is that I 

 have been mistaken in applying Friderichsen's name to our plant, 

 which he regards as only a variety of B. Bahingtonii. I now 

 agree with him in this. In spite of a very remarkable general 

 resemblance, the two plants are so widely different in glandular 

 and acicular development that they must be assigned to different 

 groups — Friderichsen's remaining where Focke places his 

 B. chlorothyrsus, among the Silvatici and immediately after 

 B. silvaticus, while the right place for our plant is among the 

 Suh-Koehleriani and near B. Bahingtonii. It should perhaps be 

 added that the mistake, only now detected, was due to the fact 

 that Mr. Friderichsen's friend, the late Mr. 0. Gelert, when stay- 

 ing with me in 1897, the year after the publication of B. 'phyllo- 

 thyrsus, gave that name to our plant without hesitation, in spite 

 of the difference in glandular development observed at the time. 

 Since then I have from time to time placed with it a considerable 

 number of plants from Surrey and other counties, none of which 

 can rightly claim a place among Silvatici. The name phyllo- 

 thyrsus must, therefore, be removed from our list. It seems 

 equally clear that B. festivus Muell. & Wirtg. should be restored 

 to it (vide Journ. Bot. 1893, p. 45). It might be placed next after 

 B. Bahingtonii, though not as a variety of it, and include several 

 of the plants hitherto named phyllothyrsus. In Buhi Europai it 

 is given as " species conjungens collectiva," and under " var. cu- 

 festivios " we find Mr. Ley's Dinmore Woods (Heref.) plant 

 (No. 95, Set of British Buhi) quoted for it. Perhaps a pro- 

 visional place should also be found, among the Silvatici, for 

 B. chlorothyrsus Focke, in agreement with the note under that 

 name on p. 177 of Buhi EuropcBi : " In Britannia vidi formam 

 foliolis subtus cano-virentibus distinctam (legit W. E. Linton in 

 Derbyshire) quam praeterea exsiccatam a B. chlorothyrso separare 

 non possum." 



Our B. cavatifolius P. J. Muell., which Dr. Focke apparently 

 accepts as Mueller's plant, he now places under B. pallidas Wh. 

 & N. as " forma luxurians densiflora et latifolia"; but it seems 

 decidedly nearer to our B. Bahingtonii, and (as I have seen it in 

 fair quantity in Herefordshire and Monmouthshire and from two 

 localities in W. Gloucester) clearly and constantly distinct from both. 



