THE REJ) CUlfKANT 21 



Histovia, ii. 97, IGol, where, after a long account of the edible 

 currant, we read " Passim in hortis colitur," no wild habitat being 

 given. This latter fact is possibly the reason why Linnaeus cites wild 

 habitats, since earlier authorities were often ignorant of thein. Yet 

 if these wild plants do not belong to the same species as the common 

 garden red currant, the latter must be cited as R. ruhrnm Linn. 

 excl. habitat. It seems quite definite that H. ruhnim L. has pen- 

 dulous racemes and is R. vulgare Schneider. 



What then is the correct name fori?, ruhrum Jancz. 1900 non L. ? 

 The earliest specific name referable to this species appears to be 

 M. spicatum Robson in Trans. Linn. Soc. iii. 240, t. 21 (1797) — given 

 to plants which he collected in Yorkshire and Durham — with erect 

 spikes of sessile flowers. Janczewski refers to this only in his alpha- 

 betical list of specific names as " r= rubrum P,"" marking it with an 

 asterisk (as he does also Syme's names) : this denotes " noms de 

 V Index Keioensis que nous n'avons pas pu controler." 



Authentic specimens collected by Robson near Richmond, York- 

 shire, are in the National Herbarium — one small shoot in Herb. 

 Banks, four others in Herb. Sowerln' which were sent by Robson to 

 be drawn for E. B., t. 1290. In four of these the flowers are sub- 

 sessile, with a trace of pedicel below the attenuated base of the calyx : 

 in one of the specmiens the flowers have distinct pedicels (2-3 mm. 

 long). In Sowerby's original drawing traces of pedicels are indi- 

 cated, and the lowest spike is flexuous. On this drawing Smith 

 pencilled a note, "racemes upright, corols sessile/' The published 

 plate is in accordance with Smith's note, no trace of pedicel showing; 

 the racemes are very stiff and erect, more so than in Robson's 

 figure, which Sowerby's original drawing much resembled. Two 

 of Robson's specimens have the spikes horizontal, not erect. The 

 figure published in Engl. Bot. may then be taken to be exaggerated. 

 Moreover, specimens collected as R. spicatum from the same locality 

 by James Ward have ascending racemes with pedicels as long as in 

 R. petrcEum Sm. ; while quite normal specimens of R. pctrceum with 

 horizontal racemes were sent thence by him for distribution by the 

 Botanical Society of Edinburgh in 1837. Mr. Bunyard states that 

 the racemes are horizontal, but Janczewski sa3"s " horizontales, 

 arquees ou ascendantes." In this connection vSyme's statement in 

 Engl. Bot. (iv. 45) is noteworthy: — "Mr. J. G. Baker writes that 

 Mr. James backhouse, who used to botanize with Mr. Robson, tells 

 him that he doubts if there was more than a single biish known of 

 R. spicatum, so that it is probably an accidental sport rather than a 

 true variety. The plant supposed to be R. spicatum from between 

 Piers Bridge and Gainsford, Durham, Mr. Backhouse believes to have 

 been R. petrceum (Sm.)." It is quite possible that Rolwon based his 

 identilication of the Durham plant on the leaf characters and the 

 direction of the racemes, for no red currant without pendulous 

 racemes had at that time been described. As we have seen, he sent 

 a i)lant with stalked flowers to Sowerby as R. spicatum, and in 

 Durham sjiecimens may. have ignored short stalks or l\ave only seen 

 the plant in bud when the pedicels had not developed. Whatever 

 the explanation, it seems impossible to regard R. spicatum Robson as 



