1885—86] BOTANICAL CORRESPONDENCE. 407 



To Henry Groves, Esq. 



Cambbidoe, Bee. 30, 1885. 



Dear Mr. Groves, — I am sorry to say that I have no duplicates 

 of Arctium. I must refer Dr. Nordstedt to "Annals of Natural 

 History," Ser. 3, xv. 9, and Ser. 2, xvii. 869. They are also I think 

 in the "Edinburgh Botanical Transactions." He will probably have 

 access to the one or the other. I am glad that he is working at 

 these difficult plants. With the best wishes of the season. — I am 

 ever yours, Charles C. Babington. 



To W. H. Beeby, Esq. 



CAMBRioeE, Dec. 30, 1885. 



Dear Mr. Beeby, — Do you know where the new Equisetum is de- 

 scribed ? I cannot discover any work by Kiihlewein. I have been 

 asked to do the Eubi for the new "London Catalogue." I fear that we 

 are hardly ready to determine them well, but must do the best that 

 we can. Unfortunately, I have not got the part of Ruprecht's 

 publications quoted by Nyman ; but I find the specimen (Fr, H. N. 

 XIII. 99) gathered by Dr. Kiihlewein "ad sinum Fennicum," also 

 Billot 2781 from near Aries; and in the "Herb. Fl. Ingricae" 

 (Cent. VI. 816) "In arenosis maritimis inter Peterhof et Oranienb. 

 passim. 1860." These are clearly the same plant, and closely allied 

 to the fluviatile (L. ) my limosum /3. I can find no description ; 

 Grenier seems not to have known it. But I have written quite 

 enough. I shall be glad indeed to see an English specimen. — Yours 

 ever, Charles C. Babington. 



To T. R. Archer Briggs, Esq. 



Cambridge, March 23, 1886. 



Dear Mr. Briggs, — Many thanks for your valuable letter, and the 

 two specimens of your Ruhus scaber. I really do not know what 

 to call it. It is not exactly the debilis of which the authentic 

 specimen has "tige faible, procumbent, cylindrique," but Genevier 

 says, "tige obtusement anguleuse." The leaves also of our plant 

 are more coarsely crenate-dentate than on most of my continental 

 specimens, especially than on the typical ones of Boulay. The 

 terminal leaflet also is much more cordate on our plant. But will 

 such points suffice for its separation 1 I doubt it. May it not be a 

 strong form of the French debilis 1 I incline to retain that name 

 provisionally. I may hit upon something about it in due time. It 

 is not easy to find a new name. I have actually now before me (in 

 Gandoger, "Rubus nouveaux") a list of 1000 named plants of this 

 genus. It is not therefore easy to find a 1001 not already used, 

 especially as this number is only of European plants, and there are 



