1890] BOTANICAL CORRESPONDENCE. 427 



I thank you greatly for helping me to a name for this Devon plant, 

 for I purpose adopting macrostemon. Notwithstanding your letter 

 of Nov. 27, I am inclined to retain the name of macrostemon for 

 this. I am rather in doubt about your other plants. First of my 

 herbarium specimens, I do not see how to distinguish the " Hedge 

 Bank between Plymbridge and Common Wood, Egg Buckland, 

 Aug. 19, 1875" (which you told me at that time, or rather with 

 the specimen, that Bloxam thought pUnthosti/lus, but I decided was 

 not that, and you agree with me) from that of " Hedge, Fursdon, 

 Egg Buckland, July 13, 1886," which you then thought approached 

 incurvatus, but was new. It is a beautiful plant, and seems to me 

 to be very near to the above (Aug. 19) one. What do you think of 

 the "Derriford, July 29, 1887," now sent to me as rainosus (Blox.) ? 

 Do you think it is the same as what I am now calling macrostemon 1 

 That Focke should have found our Brambles not exactly like the 

 German ones is what I expected, for I think we can see such slight 

 •differences between those even of different parts of Great Britain. 

 I hope that he will soon write in the " Journal of Botany " about 

 what he saw in England, and in such a manner as to enable us to 

 identify his plants. Why have you sent Bweanus from Laira ? Is 

 it not correct 1 I think so ; I cannot detect it in your " Flora," 

 and have only seen it from Lancashire and Hants, as magnificus 

 from Staffordshire by Painter, and as Boreanus (Gene v.) from Baker, 

 Yorkshire. I find in ray notes that Focke identified a plant from 

 Plymouth as Boreanus, and that it differs from that authenticated 

 by Genevier by being slightly felted. But that probably does not 

 matter, as the specimens in the " Herb. Genev." seem all to be 

 slightly felted. Do send the notes about Devoniensis. I see that 

 Bloxam spoke of it in connexion with hrachyphyllus, but I do not 

 at all agree with that. I have authentic hrachyphyllus before me 

 (Wirtg. "H. Rub." ed. i. 128, and ed. ii. 61), and they seem 

 different. Under what name did you formerly send it to me ? I 

 -do not know where to look for it. But I have to stop now. — 

 Yours ever most truly, Charles C. Babington. 



If in London, why not come here 1 We should be much pleased 

 to see you for a few days if notice is given, and you could work 

 all day one after another at Rubi. 



To the same. 



Cambridge, Jan. 14, 1890. 



Dear Mr. Briggs, — Now for the Plymouth plant which we have 

 apparently erroneously called incurvatus. I have no doubt misled 

 you; but my tendency is always to avoid a new name, and no 

 separation if I can. I consider it wiser to do so, than to do as some 

 do, rush into separation and new nomenclature. I had always 

 rather not see "Bab." after a specific name. But I think that in this 

 case a new name must be given, unless we can find one, if Genevier 



