NOTES ON RUBI. 143 



believe, — and Focke decides that it is not, he giving it the new name 

 of R. injgmaopsis (p. 364), — our plant bears a wrong name, although 

 it agrees well with the figure and description in the ' Rubi Germ.' 

 I am inclined to think that we are right, and Wirtgen is wrong. 

 Focke does not seem to be acquainted with Weihe's plant. My 

 specimens from Tonbridge Wells appear to agree exactly with 

 the it. x^raruptorum of Boulay ('Eonces des Vosges,' p. 97, s^d. 78.) 



9. R. KoEHLERi, Weihe. — The specimen so named in the "Set" 

 agrees with others similarly named by Mr. Bloxam, all of which I 

 believe are R. pallidiis, Weihe. Genevier thinks that our Pi. pallidus 

 is closely allied to Pi. miitahilis, which will be noticed presently ; 

 but, judging from a specimen received from him, I see no cause 

 for giving up the view expressed in my ' Rubi ' that R. miitahilis is 

 very near to our R. scaber ; and, indeed, the specimen named 

 R. p)Midiis by Genevier for Baker is our R. p)alliclus, and not, I 

 think, m any way allied to R. mutabilis. 



10. R. KoEHLERi, /3. iNFESTus, Bcih. — In 1867 I received from 

 Mr. Baker a very spinous bramble, gathered at St. Ann's Hill, 

 SmTey, which the ticket states Mr. Bloxam called R. foliosus, 

 and M. Genevier R. melanoxijlon. It seems to me to be very far 

 too rough a plant for the former, and appears to be a form of 

 R. Koehleri ; nor can I detect its relationship to R. melanoxylon, of 

 which there are two specimens in Wirtgen' s ' Herb. Ruborum.' 

 Probably M. Genevier has been deceived by imperfect specimens. 

 The specimens in the " Set " may be the plant of Wirtgen, but the 

 many short setffi on the stem seem to show its relationship to 

 plants like R. Hystrix, and near it accordingly I have placed the 

 specimen in questions. Genevier places the true R. melanoxylon 

 amongst plants some of which seem to belong to our Koehleriani 

 and others to the Bellardiani. Wu'tgen considers his plant to 

 range with the Spectahiles, and the analytical table given by 

 Genevier shows how close its characters, w^hen thus tabulated 

 (although that, of course, has not much weight), bring it to 

 R. mucronulatiis, near which it x^robably should be placed. 



11. R. oBLiQuus, Blox. — I possess a good series of this plant 

 kindly given to me by Mr. Briggs in 1870, and gathered near 

 Plymouth. They appear to me not to be the R. ohliquus, Whtg., of 

 which I have authentic specimens (' Herb. Rub.,' ed. 1, 98; ed. 2, 

 102.) Mr. Briggs had Bloxam' s authority for the name; they 

 therefore are the Pi. ohliquus, Blox., as described in the ' Journ. of 

 Bot.,' (viii., 69.) I agree with Mr. Briggs in the opinion (/ J. of B.,' 

 ix., 368) that R. ohliquus, Blox., is very nearly allied to, if not 

 identical with, R. mutahilis, Genev., of which I possess an authentic 

 specimen. I also now do not consider it to be so nearly allied to 

 R. scaher as I formerly did (' Rubi,' 187), but, as suggested by Mr. 

 Briggs, probably a distinct species belonging to the Koehleriani 

 rather than the Radula:. If such is its true position, it may 

 perhaps be i^laced between R. dirersifolius and R. Lejeunii. It is 

 manifestly considered to be allied to the latter by M. Genevier, for 



