Some Observations on the Genus Rubus. 100 



dingsen, correspond pretty well with our form. However, amongst other fchings, 

 this form deviates, by the complete absence of glandules in the inflorescebce, 

 the widely Qumerous, and strongcr p'rickles on the turiones and flowering 

 shoots, and the more sharply serrate leaflets. R. Münteri, Marss., also accords 

 pretty well with the Swedish form. It is true, specimens of this species which 

 Dr. Marsson, himself, had the kindness to send nie, in some respects recede 

 from our form, which, however, can thus be explained, that these specimens 

 have grown in a wood. And specimens of R. Münteri, which Dr. Focke 

 distributed to me, from Westphalia, and which were collected by Mr. Meyer- 

 iini.z, agree so elosely with the Swedish form, that hardly any doubt can exist, 

 but that this form belongs to the same species. Dr. Marsson has also assigned 

 the Swedish form to his R. Münteri. 



Under these cirenmstances it would, perhaps, have been more correct to 

 namc the form in question R. Münteri, and I have doubted very mach, if I 

 should not do so (Bot. Notiser, 1886, page 38). Bnt, on the other hand, R. 

 Münteri mav only be a form - - one of many — of a North German species. 

 1 therefore have assigned EL cordifolius as the typical form of this species. 

 I considered thal the presence of a small number of glandules in the inflore- 

 scence, is oi slight importance. I have sinee seen that Dr. Focke (Die nord- 

 westdeutschen Rub. Form, und ihre Verbreit, page 99) has connected several 

 species, formerly considered as distinet, but between themselves nearly related 

 forms, inlo one species, R. rhamnifolius, in which R. Münteri also has 

 been included. It seems to me, nevertheless, as if the real R. rhamnifolius, 

 Whe, by its long-stalked, under felted leaflets, inight belong to a more southern 

 type. As my knowledge of the north German brambles is, still, tnuch too 

 BÜghl to deeide this question, 1 have, after miieh consideration, retained the 

 aame given in the introduetion. 



li. cordifolius, or the türm of this species, EL * Münteri, that is growing 

 in the easl of Sweden, approaches rather near to the Norwegian form of EL 

 villicaulis. Even Pocke (1. c. page 99) refers the variety alienus of this 

 Bpecies to li. Münteri. However, it is quite certain that this variety belongs 

 to the form, which I have called IL villicaulis, so that, if the one form 

 oughl to be referred to EL Münteri. so also should the other. I have also 

 been very inuch puzzled, a~ to the decision of this question, particularly as I 

 have not had any opportunity of Beeing a living Bpecimen of the Norwegian R. 

 villicaulis. I have, however, had very copious material at my disposal. 



