NOTES ON RUBI. 177 



with that name as No. 05 of his ' Eubi Selecti.' It seems to be 

 the li. ampliticatus of Lees, publislied 1847, and therefore also more 

 recently than Kaltenbach's name. I presume that we must drop 

 my name, and adopt that of Lees, viz., R. longithijrsiger . But as all 

 our nomenclature will have to be carefully examined with Focke's 

 ' Synopsis ' and his specimens, we may perhaps let that question 

 rest for the present. Both that book and these specimens have 

 come into my hands smce this paper was prepared for the press, 

 and I thought it best to prmt it nearly as it stood, as, except on 

 questions of nomenclature, there will probably be but little to alter. 

 I hope to examine this latter question with care at a later period 

 of the year, when my time will, I hope, be more at my own 

 disposal. 



15. E. GuENTHEEi, Weihe. — Doubts have arisen concerning the 

 name of this plant, and its identity with that of Giinther, which 

 Weihe makes the type of his E. Gilnthen, that is, the E. glandu- 

 losus of Giinther's "PI. exsic. Silis.," which I have not seen and 

 do not know where to find. Even Focke does not seem to have 

 seen that collection. The true R. Gi'mtheri, Weihe, appears to be 

 an eastern plant, whilst ours is western. Prof. Areschong and Dr. 

 Focke agree in believing that ours is not the E. Gilnthen, Weihe, 

 but the E. saltuiim, Focke. Genevier seems to agree with us in 

 calling the western plant E. Giintheri, but then he separates from 

 it the R. cinerascens, Bor. I have carefully studied his characters 

 for the plants, and think that we cannot separate them. Never- 

 theless I believe that we are wrong in using the name of E. Gi'mtheri 

 for our plant, which is exactly the E. saltuum, Focke, pubhshed in 

 1870. E. cinerascens, Bor., was published in 1857, but there seems 

 to be an earlier E. cinerascens of Weihe (in 'Lejeune et Courtois 

 Prod. Fl. Belg.,' ii., 171) in 1831, which is closely alHed to 

 E. apiculatus, Weihe, but considered as distinct by those botanists, 

 and referred to by Focke {]). 310.) Focke's ' SynoiDsis ' is a work 

 of such authority that we shall, I think, do well in adopting his 

 name rather than the somewhat ambiguous one of Boreau. 

 Weihe' s name and plant seem to be little if at all known. 



16. E. FOLiosus, Weihe. ^ — I am unable to separate as species 

 the specimens named E. foliosus and E. atro-rubens by Bloxam. 

 Several specimens of each are now before me, most of them 

 authenticated by him. Those named E. foliosus seem to me much 

 more like E. exsecatus, Miill., than E. foliosus, Weihe. The 

 markedly cordate terminal leaflet accords admirably with Miiller's 

 specimen (Wirtg. Herb. Eub., 179), but not with the E. chloro- 

 thyrsns, Focke, to which oiu- E. foliosus is rather doubtfully referred 

 by Dr. Focke. Neither is the armature of tlie stem of our plant 

 like that of E. chlorothyrsus. Focke also i)laces under the same 

 head the R. calratus, Blox., which I think belongs to quite a 

 different section of the genus from our E. foliosus. 



The E. atro-rubens, Blox., is apparently the E. adornatus, Miill., 

 which was once called by that name by Wirtgeii. Specimens of 



. 2a 



