86 NOTES ON RUBI. 



undoubtedly represents my R. Leesii. Mr. Bromwicli's plant is 

 even more curious than the car. anumcdm ; for it has most of the 

 leaves on the barren stem 3-lobed, although a few of them are 

 ternate. Arrhenius thought that Host (' Fl. Aust,' ii. 28) had 

 seen a similar plant ; but on reading Host's remarks, I cannot find 

 any cause for thinking that he knew any plant really different from 

 the ternate-leaved forms of Ii. Idmis. As Focke (' Journ. of Bot.,' 

 X., 27) justly remarks, the lengthening of the leaves in a forward 

 dil-ection is arrested in Pi. Leesii, but very marked in true E. Idmis. 

 He supposes that this may be a form developing into a new species, 

 but that can hardly be the case, as it usually, if not always, has 

 barren di-upes. 



I think, therefore, that we cannot sustain Pi. Leesii as a species 

 distinct from B. LI(bus, although the two plants can never be con- 

 founded either in the field or the herbarium. Some very valuable 

 and interesting remarks upon R. Idmis, by F. W. C. Areschong, will 

 be found in the 'Journ. of Bot.,' xi., 108. 



2. E. suBERECTus, Auders., and E. fissus, Lindl., seem to be 

 well understood by the northern continental botanists, but they 

 were hardly clear to such a master in this genus as the Eev. A. 

 Bloxam. In his recently-issued " Set of British Riibi,'' he gives a 

 very good example of R. Jissus from Moira Eeservoir, in Leicester- 

 shh'e, as R. suherectiis. I had not previously seen any specimens 

 named R. Jissus or ft. suherectus by him, and this specimen rather 

 troubles me, as it renders doubtful the counties which I have 

 quoted for these plants on his authority (Worcester, Hereford, and 

 Leicester) m my " Eubi," (pages 53 and 57.) Those counties now 

 requu-e confirmation. Mr. Bloxam issued two specimens, one 

 as R. suherectus and the other as R. Jissus ; but I cannot see in what 

 they difl'er. One of the specimens named R. Jissus by Lindley for 

 Leighton is exactly the R. suherectus of this published " Set." 

 Pi. microacanthos (Kalt. !), in ' Wirtg. Herb. Eub.,' ed. ii. 51, and 

 Boulay's ! ' Eonces Vosg.,' 121, is a synonym of R. suherectus 

 (Anders.) 



3. E. iMBRicATUs, Hurt. I now possess a good series of R. ramosus 

 (Blox.), from near Plymouth (T. E. Archer Briggs), and near 

 Bu-mingham (J. Bagnall.) Also authentic specimens from Mr. 

 Bloxam, from the neighbourhood of Eugby. It only seems to 

 differ from R. imhricatus by the leaflets not being imbricate and 

 sometimes having felt beneath. In no other respect can I detect 

 any important difference. The names are not very good, but 

 unfortunately the worse of them is by many years the elder. Mr. 

 Briggs has given a detailed description of R. ramosus in the ' Journ. 

 of Bot.' (ix., 330.) I do not think that it was described under that 

 or any other name previously, unless it is the same as R. imhricatus. 

 It is probable that the imbricate character of the leaflets of Mr. 

 Hort's plant is not constant, although he considered it so marked a 

 distinction as to use it to furnish a specific name. I could not find 

 any plant with such leaves at Eedbrook, and I have not seen one 

 with them, except those from Mr. Hort himself, unless they are so 

 on a specimen gathered at Eedbrook by the Eev. A. Ley in 1871. 



