RUBUS FKUTICOSUS 55 



Floras under the names R. ulmifolius and R. riisticamis. The 

 principal references cited by Linnaeus are correct, and one of them 

 includes a rude but quite characteristic figure of the plant under 

 discussion. It may be interesting to repeat the characters and 

 references given by Linnaeus, the latter being somewhat amplified 

 for the sake of clearness. 



"5. Rubies foliis quinato-digitatis ternatisque, caule iMiolisque 

 aculeatis, L. Fl. Suec. ed. 1, p. 148, n. 409 (1745). 



" Ruhus caule aculeato foliis ternatis ac quinatis, L. Hort. Cliff., 

 p. 192 (1731) ; Gronov. Fl. Virg. ed. 1, p. 78 (1742) ; Royen. Fl. 

 Leyden. p. 273 (1740). 



" Ruhus vulgaris sive ruhus fructu nigro, C. Bauh. Pinax, p. 479 

 (1671). 



''Ruhus, Camerar. in Matth. Epit. Util., p. 751, with fig. 



" /3. Ruhus vulgaris major, fructo albo, Eay. Syn. Stirp. Meth. 

 Brit., ed. 3, p. 467 (1724). 



" y. Ruhus flore alhojjleno, Magnol, Hort., p. 175 (1697)." 



These references certainly include R. fruticosus as long after- 

 wards understood, and as the only figure cited agrees with the 

 plant in the Linnean Herbarium, and, moreover, as the habitat 

 given is within the area of this common and widely distributed 

 plant, there can be no reason for setting the original name aside 

 merely because some of the references include something else. 

 Some of these admixtures are entirely doubtful, as those covered 

 by the citation from Bauhin, who is also quoted in most of the 

 references given in paragraphs 1 and 2. 



The inclusion of Fl. Suec. n. 409 has tended to obscure the 

 issue, as it has been held that this refers to a Scandinavian plant, 

 but the reference includes Bauhin's plant with all its confusion. 

 The Scandinavian plant, which is a native of Central Scandinavia, 

 Denmark, and North Germany, was afterwards described as 

 R. WaJilhergii Arrhen. (Rub. Suec. p. 43), which Focke describes 

 as intermediate between R. ccBsius and R. rliamnifolius, while 

 Sudre states that it is a hybrid between R. villicaulis x C(Bsius. 

 In other respects it does not fulfil the requirements of the name 

 R. fruticosus, L. 



Another erroneous inclusion by Linnaeus is that of the 

 Virginian plant of Gronovius, which can be traced to its deter- 

 mination by the latter author as the plant of "Bauh. Pinax, 479." 

 There are two original sheets of the plant of Gronovius in the 

 British Museum Herbarium, and a comparison shows that they 

 belong to R. trivialis, Michx. Fl. Amer. i, p. 296, a species that 

 ranges from Virginia to Florida and west to Missouri and Texas. 



Lastly, it may also be said that the two varieties of Linnaeus 

 may have to be excluded. Var. /3, the white-fruited kind, is 

 doubtful, for although there is an amber-fruited form of R. fruti- 

 cosus {var. leticocarjms, Seringe in DC. Prodr. ii. p. 561) this one 

 (|3) is said to differ from the black-fruited form in having the 

 leaves green beneath. Var. y, the one with double white flow^ers, 

 is probably R. thyrsoideus, Wimm. var. flore 2)leno (Gard. Chron. 

 1882, xviii, pp. 244, 245, fig. 35), also known in gardens as 



