Some Observations Oll the Heims Rubus. 1 Oö 



the peduncles, are armed with few slender and patent pricklos. The petals are 

 entire. The inflorescence of R. villicaulis is, on the contrary, leafy throughout, 

 with a Munt convex end, and forms a dense Bubcylindrical panicle, of which 

 the ultimate subdivisions are inextricablv interlaced. The branches of the in- 

 floreseence are almost of the same length, dividing once or twice near their top 

 and supporting a corymbose cyme. The peduncles are veiy prickly from their 

 middle ap to the top, but nearly unarmed at the base, provided with minnte 

 subsessile glandules, and falcate prickles. The petals are notched. 



Although 1 am, by no means, quite sure that this form can be identificd 

 with the true R. villicaulis, stillT do not consider myself obliged to follow 

 Mr. Lindebekg, whcn he regards it as a new species, which he calls R. Sel- 

 meri. For particularly in our country, the climatic conditions of which are 

 not of such a nature as to promote the developement of new species, 

 within a group that has a preponderating southern extension, one. requires 

 to proceed with the greatest caution, in the setting up of new species. 

 Ir was also this thought that influenced tue, when (in Blytt's Norges Fl. 

 pag. L163) I first distinguished this form and referred it to R. villicaulis. 

 \l-u Mr. Focke, to whoin I sent dried specimens, and asked bis opinion about 

 (bis form, did not hesitate to refer it to R. villicaulis, although it somewhat 

 diverges, by being less hairy. 



<>n the other hand, the aorwegian form approaches very nearly to R. 

 M it uteri. Marss. This is particularly the case with the variety alienus, 

 which Mr. Focke, to whom I sent some dried specimens of this variety, clearly 

 identified with Maksson's species. It is, however, not subject to the least doubt, 

 that this form is a variety of that species, which has been named R. villi- 

 caulis, and 1 adduce this instance only to show, how nearly related to each 

 other the forma that belong to this and the neighbouring groups, really are. 



But II. LindleyanuSj Lees, in particular, approaches the Nor wegian form 

 so closely, that 1 hardly know what characteristics distinguish them from each 

 other. The description, given by Babington (Brit. Rubi, pag. 75 and 76) of 

 the R. Lindleyanua, so entirely accords with our form, that it, almost word 

 for wonl, could be used for it. The English specimens, however, that I have 

 partly collected myself, partly reeeived from English rubologists, rccede in 

 several respects from the Norwegian form. The last named form is more 

 Btrongly armed, has more rounded terminal leaflets on the turiones, whose sur- 

 face, besidcs, does not shine in so peculiar a manner — almost as if it were 



