1889] BOTANICAL CORRESPONDENCE. 423 



To T. R. Archer Briggs, Esq. 



Herbarium, Cambkidge, Oct. 23, 1889. 



My attention has been again drawn to Malva 



borealis, which you find near Anthony. I think the figure in "English 

 Botany" is probably not borealis, being apparently quite upright. 

 What is the fact with your plant ? I have no specimen of it. Does 

 it continue there 1 I see you consider it to have disappeared on the 

 Fl. Plym. Was it erect or prostrate, or could Hudson's "caule 

 patulo " describe it ? The " English Botany " figure is quite erect, 

 and Smith does not anywhere tell us if that is correct. If correct, 

 I can discover nothing like it. — Yours truly, Charles C. Babington. 



To the same. 



Cambridge, Oct. 31, 1889. 



Dear Mr. Briggs, — I am very much obliged to you. All is most 

 interesting. I greatly rejoice to obtain specimens of Ruhus Boreanus, 

 accepted as such by Focke. It differs from what I have believed to 

 be Boreanus on the authority of a specimen so named for Baker in 

 1865 by Genevier, from Wass in Yorkshire (September, 1885). I 

 also believe that I have the same from J. Groves (Bishopstoke, 

 Hants, July 23, 1878), and near Liverpool, August 2, 1870 (Harbord 

 Lewis). All these I once called Colemanni. The felt seems most 

 usually present on the true plant, but very variable in quantity. I 

 am glad to have a specimen of the Malva hweidis from Anthony. 

 Borealis and rotimdifolia are very much like each other. But then 

 what was Hudson's plant from Hythe ("English Botany," 241)? 

 It seems to have been an upright plant. Of course it is of but 

 little consequence what Hudson meant, as the specimen was only 

 accidental, and once found. I am also thankful for the hybrid 

 Carduus. I fancy that I have seen specimens very like it. — Believe 

 me to be, yours ever, Charles C. Babington. 



To the same. 



Cambridge, Xov. 8, 1889. 



Dear Mr. Briggs, — I am extremely puzzled with the so-called Ruhus 

 ramosus (Blox.). There is no difficulty with your common plant, 

 which must retain the name which you accepted for it ("Journal of 

 Botany," VII. 35 and IX. 330) in 1869 ; but the midland plant is 

 very different, and was placed to R. racemosus and also to R. clethra- 

 philus by Genevier, to neither of which it seems to me that it can 

 belong. It has no trace of felt on the leaves, and a pyramidal, not 

 subcylindrical, panicle. I presume that you have it from Bloxam. 

 I have it from Lancashire, as issued by the Exchange Club as 

 imbricatus on my own authority, given to Mr. Lewis. Also I find a 

 specimen from you, "Hedgebank between Plymbridge Road and 



