RUBUS FRUTICOSUS 57 



Generally recognisable at a glance by the very pruinose stem, 

 large-based hooked panicle-prickles, and small white-felted obovate- 

 cuspidate leaflets." 



It is a very common and widely distributed plant. Eogers 

 describes it as generally distributed in the lowlands of England, 

 Wales, and Ireland, but rare in Scotland. On the Continent it is 

 common in France, Belgium, the southern parts of the Nether- 

 lands, S.W. Switzerland, the Spanish peninsula, and the whole of 

 the Mediterranean region, but in Germany, according to Focke, it 

 is very local, in places near the western frontier. It also occurs 

 in Madeira and the Azores, and extends eastwards as far as 

 Afghanistan and the North- West Himalaya. As an introduced 

 plant it occurs in New Zealand, where it is recorded as " plentiful 

 throughout the colony " ; also in Uruguay, Chili, and South 

 Brazil. 



According to the above view the following is the revised 

 synonymy of the species, with such figures as we have been able 

 to consult : — 



Buhits fruticosus, L., Sp. PL ed. 1, p. 493 (1753) ; Lam., 

 Encycl. Meth. ii, p. 548, t. 441, fig. 1-2; Fl. Dan. vii, t. 1163; 

 Smith, Engl. Bot. x, t. 715 ; Schkuhr, Handb. ii, p. 50, t. 135, fig. 

 h-1; Hayne, Gewachse, iii, t. 12 ; Guimpel, Holzgew. i, p. 136, t. 

 103 ; Duhamel, Traite Arb. vi, p. 71, t. 22. 



B. ulmifolius, Schott in Isis, fasc. v, p. 821 (1818) ; Sudre, 

 Eub. Eur., p. 69, t. 77 ; Focke in Bibl. Bot. Ixvii, p. 153. 



B. discolor, Weihe & Nees, Eub. Germ, v, p. 46, ex parte, t. 20, 

 figs, c-e (1824) ; Syme, Engl. Bot. iii, p. 171, t. 447 ; Laguna, Fi. 

 For. Esp., p. 246, t. 65; Bab., Brit. Eubi, p. 100. 



B. rusticanus, Merc, in Eeut. Cat. PI. Vase. Geneve, ed. 2, p. 

 279 (1861) ; Focke in Journ. Bot. 1890, p. 129 ; Eogers, Handb. 

 Brit. Eubi, p. 40. 



THE PLANTS OF SALISBUEY'S "PEODEOMUS" (1796). 



By James Britten, F.L.S. 



In this Journal for 1886 (pp. 49, 296) I called attention to the 

 unfair ignoring of Eichard Anthony Salisbury's work by his con- 

 temporaries, and suggested that this was in great measure due to 

 his personal unpopularity. For this there may have been, and 

 probably were, reasons, and it must be admitted that Salisbury, 

 in return, was unsparing in his criticism ; but it is little to the 

 credit of the botanists of the time that they should have allowed 

 personal antipathy to lead them into a course of action which, 

 from the point of view of Science, it is impossible to justify. It 

 has been customary to explain their attitude as the result of the 

 resentment felt at Salisbury's anticipation of Eobert Brown's 

 great paper on the Proteacce (Trans. Linn. Soc. x, 1810) — read 

 before the Linnean Society at the meeting on January 17th, 1809, 

 Journal op Botany. — Vol. 54. [February, 1916.] f 



