114 NOTES ON RUBI. 



were erroneously referred by the late Sir W. Hooker to A. drepaymm, 

 Sw., and described by me (' Ann. Sc. Nat.,' 4e ser., xviii., 235) as a 

 new species, under the name of A. controversum. But I subse- 

 quently ('Ann. Sc. Nat.,' 5e ser., v., 269) corrected my mistake, 

 and indicated the correct designation. 



70. Aspidium syrmaticum, Willd. In silvis, Tmg-ii-shan, prov. 

 Cantonensis, coll. Sampson. 



NOTES ON RUBI. 



(No II.) 



By Charles C. Babington, F.R.S., &c. 



(Continued from p. 87). 



4. KuBus Salteri, Bab. — There continues to be some difficulty 

 about the two plants which I have combined under this name, and 

 Mr. Bloxam has not lessened it by the specimens which he recently 

 issued in his ' Set.' I find in that collection two specimens, 

 named respectively R. cah-atus and R. sylvaticus. In my opinion 

 the latter specimen does not represent the plants formerly named 

 R. sylvaticus by Bloxam in his ' Fasciculus,' and mcluded by me 

 under that name in my ' Synopsis,' and which is now called 

 R. mucronulatus ; nor that so named by him in Kirby's ' Flora of 

 Leicester,' and by me as also a p)art of the //. sylvaticus, in the 

 * Synopsis,' which is R. viUicaidis ; nor with the R. sylvaticus of 

 the ' Rubi Germanici.' Apparently the specimens now issued as 

 R. calvatus and R. sylvaticus both belong to the former. 



The synonyms of Boreau and Genevier, quoted in my 'Rubi,' 

 must be erased. M. Genevier named a plant (gathered by Mr.' 

 Baker at Thirsk, in 1864) R. piletostachys ; but it has an aciculate 

 and aculeate calyx which Genevier markedly states not to be the 

 case in his plant. The specimen from Thu'sk seems to agree better 

 with the R. atrocaidis, MiilL, as described in 'Genev. Rubi Loire;' 

 but then the similarly-named specimen in ' Wirtg. Herb. Rub.,* 

 (ed. 1, fasc. i., no. 143) is not at all like our plant. The plant of 

 Billot ('Fl. Gall, exsic.,' 2667) closely resembles our R, calvattis, 

 but, as Genevier justly remarks, is totally devoid of set^e, although 

 in other respects it accords faudy with our plant. Genevier says (1. c, 

 p. 165), that it is R. mmtitiis, MiilL, not the R. piletostachys of Gren. 

 and Godr. Other continental specimens from M. Boulay, &c., do 

 not accord with our plant, nor, as I think, with that of Genevier. 

 Focke quotes the ii. piletostachys of Miiller and Genevier as cer- 

 tainly that of the ' Flore de France,' and places the plant next to 

 R. Schlechteiidalii. 



5. R. viLLiCAULis, W. (£• N. Mr. Bloxam has issued the 

 flowering shoot of a j)lant with the name of R. viUicaulis v. 

 derasus, which, as far as I can judge from such imperfect materials, 

 is the same as specimens I received from him in the year 1866 as 

 R. Bakeri (Blox. MS.), and referred to the form of R. villicaidis, 



