NOTES ON RUBI. 175 



NOTES ON RUBI. 



(No IV.) 

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



(Continued from p. 145). 



13. EuBUs Fusco-ATER, Weilu. — The ordinary forms of this 

 bramble do not present much difficulty. Focke doubts the identity 

 of our iDlant with that of Weihe. But there are two forms, both 

 named by Mr. Bloxam and one of them described by him, which 

 reqmi-e attention. They are B,. Brhjgsii and Pi. Bagnallii. 



(1.) it. Brigr/sii, Blox,, in 'J. of Bot.,' vii., 33, tab. 88, is a 

 very beautiful plant which I have long known. It was shown to 

 me as peculiar, in 1845, by Mr. Borrer, but he gave it no name. 

 I still adhere to my pubhshed opinion that it is very closely aUied 

 to our B. fusco-atet\ Mr. Bloxam also expressed the same opinion 

 of it, but held it to be specifically distinct. There is nothing like 

 it in my extensive collection of foreign Eubi. 



(2.) B. BafpiaUii, Blox. MS., may, I think, be identified with 

 B. emersistyhis, MliU., as illustrated by the specimens in Boulay's 

 ' Eonces Vosgiennes ' (No. 55), and described by the Abbe, on page 

 74 of his 'Descr. des Especes.' I can detect very slight difterence 

 between our specimens and those of Boulay, — only that the stem 

 of oirr plant is quite devoid of haii's, the leaves are more usually 

 quinate, and the terminal leaflets on the flowering shoot are more 

 decidedly cordate at the base. Boulay describes the leaves of his 

 plant as simply dentate ; but his specimens show the same 

 tendency to double dentition as is foimd on our Warwickshke 

 plant, viz., rather distant and somewhat larger and slightly reflexed 

 teeth with patent smaller ones between them. I therefore think 

 that B. Bagnallii must take the name of B. emersistyhis. 



But now comes the question : Is B. Briggsii distinct fi'om 

 B. ernersistylus : For if they are not distinct, Bloxam's name, pub- 

 lished in 1869, must give way to Miiller's, which was used with an 

 adequate description in 1867. Having failed in finding sufficient 

 difference between B. Briggsii and 7?. Bagnallii to convince myself 

 of then- specific difference, I fear that both names must disappear, 

 and be replaced by B. emersistyhis. Indeed I fail to define the 

 difference between them. They certainly present a different 

 appearance, caused by B. Bagnallii being rather less haiiy, its 

 leaflets rather less round, and having fewer acicidi and setae on the 

 stem, in which respects it is the nearer of the two to B. fusco-ater. 

 Perhaps when combined they may be distinguished as a species, in 

 accordance with the views of Bloxam, Genevier, and Miiller, as 

 foUows : — 



R. emersistyhis, Miill. ; stem arcuate-prostrate angular hairy, 

 prickles slightly declining unequal from a compressed 

 base a few smaller, setaj acicidi and hairs very short nearly 

 equal, leaflets rather irregularly and rather doubly dentate 

 thick even above green and hairy on the veins beneath. 



