1877—78] BOTANICAL CORRESPONDENCE. 383 



never saw Drouetii other than bright green, or trichophyllus other than 

 dark green. 



No. 14. R. heterophyllus submersus. 



No. 1 5. Not triphyllos, but one of the many forms of heterophyllus. 

 I hope that these notes will meet your wishes, although the names 

 are not exactly such as you expected. — Yours very truly, Charles 

 C. Babington. 



If you have a duplicate of E. triphyllus I should be glad of it. 



To the same. 



Cambridge, Dec. 24, 1877. 



My dear Sir, — Many thanks for the beautiful set of the Ranun- 

 culus from Satley. My former specimen was single, small, and 

 incomplete. What I have now received convinces me that it is not 

 triphyllos (to which Hiern erroneously quotes St. 67, 7), but the 

 tripartitus (D.C) (to which Hiern again quotes the same figure 

 correctly), of which there is a good figure in Reichenbach, Vol. ill., 

 pi. 2. It does not seem to be a recorded British plant, as my 

 former tripartitus is intermedins. I have also the true triphyllos from 

 Guernsey (Braye du Valle), and co. Kerry in Ireland. What Baker 

 named triphyllos in 1854 is apparently a form of Baudotii. I have a 

 specimen of triphyllos from Boreau, which is no doubt correct, and 

 is not your Satley plant. I have also tripartitus in Billot's "Exsic- 

 cata," (No. 2403) which is your plant. Your specimens can hardly 

 be said to shew the submersed leaves, as they have nearly all rotted 

 away. This is all that I can say about the plants at present, but I 

 am still busy with them. — Yours truly, Charles C. Babington. 



To J. E. Bagnall, Esq., Birmingham. 



5, Brookside, Cambridge, April 8, 1878. 



My dear Sir, — I think that I have specimens from Mancetter of 

 what Bloxam allowed you to name Rubus rubicolor, and so need not 

 trouble you to send your authentic specimen to me. If you get 

 others in the autumn I should indeed be glad of one. It is very 

 unfortunate that Bloxam put so imperfect a specimen into his " set," 

 as he called it. By his "Fasciculus," I understand a collection 

 issued by him some years since — not this one. He called that a 

 " Fasciculus" and advertised this as a Set. I am sorry to learn that 

 Bloxam's herbarium and duplicates are to form one lot for sale. 

 Probably there would have been some competition for his Rubi and 

 Roses if separately sold. Now the whole will not come to any of us. 

 I hope it may get into some public Museum. — Yours very truly, 

 Charles C. Babington. 



