286 PROFESSOR BABINGTON ON RUBUS IN 1891. 



extracted from the body of the work the Professor's account of 

 R. lentlijinosm Lees. I had thought this too obscure a form to 

 claim a place in our llubus list ; but I have now had the advantage 

 of seeing Lees's authentic specimens in the Cambridge Babington 

 Herbarium, and I find them identical with the plant described by 

 Dr. Focke, and published only last year in Griffith's Fl. Anijl. tO 

 (Janiari). as 11. camhricus Focke. This latter name must now of 

 course give place to R. lentii/iiiosns Lees, published so long ago as 

 1849 in Steele's JIandbook, p. 60. Dr. Focke would place it next 

 to /(. Questierii Lefv. & Muell. — W. Moyle Kogers.] 



Preface. 



The time seems to have arrived when a new treatise on the 

 British Rubi is required, and as I am told that this is expected from 

 me, I have endeavoured to prepare one. It does not supersede my 

 Jhitish Ruhi, the object of which was to ascertain the plants intended 

 by British authorities up to the time (1869) of its publication. My 

 chief object now is to endeavour to identify our plants with those 

 of the continental authors, especially Focke and Genevier. 



I now possess the means wanting to me in 1869, for the whole 

 herbarium of Genevier has come to Cambridge, and through the 

 kindness of Dr. Focke I possess named specimens of most of his 

 species ; many others which he could not give me have been ob- 

 tained by the liberality of English botanists, who have had their 

 plants named by him. I feel therefore that probably the duty of 

 preparing a new British Ruhi has really devolved upon me. But 

 the further I go in the study of our native plants the clearer it 

 becomes that we really are far from truly understanding them. 

 As my former book was only provisional, this also cannot claim 

 any higher position. If it helps forward those who are studying 

 this difficult genus, my wishes are fully met. 



Not only is much continued study of the plants required before 

 we can decide what forms are to be accepted as species, what are 

 permanent varieties, and what are only variations which may be 

 expected to revert when proj)agated by seed to the more permanent 

 forms, and also which of them may be fairly considered as the 

 result of hybridization, but a careful study of them all in the living 

 state must be made. Unfortunately living in a district where Kubi 

 are far from abundant, it has been out of my power to do this, and 

 therefore I may, nay must, have fallen into error in many cases. 

 Those botanists who are more favourably situated must be looked 

 to for making the necessary corrections. This book can only be 

 considered as preliminary, very far from being a final, determination 

 of the Ruhi to be found in Britain. I have therefore named and 

 described many forms which seem to be well marked, but may not 

 prove to be permanent after the requisite study has been bestowed 

 upon them in their native places of growth. 



Focke justly remarks that "Very few botanists recognize the 

 fact that there are in Europe at the present time perhaps fifty times 

 the number of apparently permanent forms of plants reproduced 

 from seed than we find species recorded in books. According to 



