208 NOTES ON RUBI. 



of those authors. The other (2) bears the name of B. hirtiis. It 

 wants the barren stem, but apparently the very young panicle 

 resembles that of the precedmg (1) ; and it also is from Beaumaris. 

 R.fiaxidijiorus, MiilL, is shown, byBoulay's specimen and descrip- 

 tion (' R. V.,' 83, and p. 102), to be the same. Of course B,. hirtus 

 is the older name. 



R. Eeuteri, Merc, of Eeuter's 'Cat. Genev.,' 272, and ' Genev. 

 R. L.,' 123, of which I possess an authentic s^^ecimen, is very 

 closely allied to R. hirtus. It is exactly like specimens gathered by 

 Mr. Purchas at Sellack and Penyard Park, in Hertfordshu-e, and 

 agrees well with others distributed many years since by Mr. Baker 

 as R. rudis, which he gathered between Thirsk and Topchff, in 

 Yorkshu-e ; and also with one from Banchory, in Scotland, which 

 I named R. Koehleri var. infestus for its collector, Mr. J. Sim. 

 jR. Reuteri differs chiefly from R. hirtus by its ob ovate -acuminate 

 terminal leaflet, which is rather less hairy beneath, and less 

 coarsely serrate ; but I do not consider it as more than a form of 

 R. hirtus. 



19. R. HETEROCLITUS. — The specimen named R. heteroclitus in 

 the "Set" is, on the first view, very like my authentic R. hetero- 

 clitus contained in the ' Herb. Rub.' (ed. 1, 119, and ed. 2, 54), but 

 cannot really be the same. Wii'tgen and Miiller correctly refer 

 their plant to the Suherecti; but that of Bloxam has not the 

 pecuhar clothing, or rather nakedness, of the sepals so characteristic 

 of that group ; nor does its stem, as shown by fine specimens, sent 

 to me as authentic, by Mr. Bagnall, fi'om New Park, Middleton, 

 Warwickshii-e, at all agree with that of the Suherecti. Although, 

 therefore, I am obliged to give my decided opinion that it is not 

 R. heteroclitus, I am far less able to give it a certain name. But, 

 without being able to decide with certainty the true place of the 

 specimens from Bloxam and Bagnall, I think that they are closely 

 allied to R. uillicaulis j3. adscitus, the R. vulgaris of Lindley's first 

 edition. 



20. R. PuRCHASii, Blo.v. — It is unfortunate that Mr. Bloxam 

 did not describe, or at least characterise, this plant, of which I find 

 a specimen in the " Set," and possess another from Mr. Purchas, 

 for I do not know where to place it. 



21. R. DUMETORUM vur. iNTERMEDius, Warr. — Mr. Bloxam used 

 this name in the " Set," but it is now dropped by Mr. Warren in 

 favour of R. tuherculatus, which is very fahdy rei3resented in the 

 ' J. of B.' (viii., 1. 106). The specimen in the " Set" probably does 

 not belong to it, and is undeterminable. 



22. R. DUMETORUM var. coNCiNNus. — The specimen issued by Mr. 

 Bloxam, and authenticated by Mr. Warren, can hardly be a form 

 of R. tuberculatus, to which his var. concinnus is referred by the 

 latter botanist in the ' J. of B.' (viii. 152), but seems rather to 

 belong to my R. corylifolius y. purpureas. It is far from beuig a 

 satisfactory specimen. I possess specimens given by Mr. E. Lees 

 many years since, and named by him R. dumcntorum var. glabratus 



