NOTES ON RUBI. 115 



called derasus iu my 'Eubi' {-p. 145). I still think so. It seems to 

 be the jR. vulgaris of Lmdley's first edition of his ' Syuoi^sis.' 



I also possess another specimen bearing a MS. name conferred 

 by Mr. Bloxam, — R. Warrenii, — which was gathered by Mr. F. M. 

 Webb on Knutsford Heath, in Cheshire, and given to me by Mr. 

 James Bagnall. Mr. Bloxam spoke doubtfully of it to the latter 

 in 1870, and my correspondent adds : " My friend, Mr. Webb, tells 

 me that Mr. Bloxam refers it to the Bellardiani. To me it does not 

 appear to belong to that group, but to the Sylvatici.'' I fully concur 

 with my excellent correspondent in this latter opinion. I gathered 

 what is apparently E. Warrenii at Douglas, in the Isle of Man. 



Both of these plants seem to belong to the original Jtl. vulgaris 

 of Lindley (not of ' Eubi Germ.'). R. Warrenii is the more prickly 

 form, although it has very few set« on the barren stem ; but one 

 of the specimens named by Lindley is not much less prickly. 

 Also, the specimens called li. Bakeri by Bloxam, in 1866, with the 

 appended remark, " It is a glandulose Bubus,'' have few prickles 

 and scarcely a seta, but plenty of sessile glands on the barren 

 stems. In the present state of our knowledge I think that we 

 must include all these under the B. villicaulis ft. adscitus, the 

 ft, derasus of my ' Eubi.' 



I have said B. villicaulis ft. adscitus, because it seems almost if 

 not quite certain that I was mistaken in considering these or any 

 of them as the B. derasus, Miill. ; but unfortunately I have not 

 now the authenticated specimens quoted in my ' Eubi ' within my 

 reach. Mr. Briggs, who has seen those same specimens, considers 

 them to be different from any form of B. villicaulis, and Mr. 

 Warren says (Jomm. of Bot., ix., 367) that B. derasus is near 

 B. Bellardi. My B. villicaulis ft. derasus ought, therefore, to take 

 the name of ft. adscitus as being almost certainly the B. adscitus, 

 Genev. Mr. Briggs has written fully about B. adscitus in this 

 Journal (ix., 366). 



6. E. MUCRONULATUS, Bor. Both B. leucanthemus and B. amphi- 

 chloros of Muller are referred to B. mucronulatus in my ' Eubi ' on 

 the authority of specimens named by Gene^der. I now think that 

 this is an error. Genevier places ft. leucanthemus next to B. vestitus 

 in his ' Eonces Lou-e,' and points out that the former differs from 

 the latter by having white flowers and stamens and green styles. 

 I find white stamens and green styles on some, at least, of my 

 B. vestitus. Focke places B. leucanthemus as a svnonym of B. vestitus 

 (' Syn. Eub.,' 291). 



Genevier puts B. aitiphichloros very near to our aggregate 

 species, B. wacrojjhyllus, in its form called B. umhrosus by us. It 

 is placed under B. vulgaris by Boreau, which shows that his opinion 

 was very nearly if not exactly the same as that of Genevier. The 

 si^ecimens issued by Boulay (no. 10) are not precisely the same as 

 ours. But I think that the plants may fairly be placed together. 

 Such was the opinion of Genevier when Mr. Baker's specimens 

 from Langloy Lead Mine were submitted to him for determination. 



Mr. Warren mentions in this Journal (vii., 359), but does not 



