1890] BOTANICAL CORRESPONDENCE. 431 



are of great value to me. I think that I had better send you fresh 

 Charas from Braemar, as I hope to be there in September. — 

 Yours truly, Charles C. Babington. 



. To the Eev. W. Moyle Eogers, Pine Bene, Branksome Park, 



Bournemouth. 



Cambkidge, May 28, 1890. 

 Dear Mr. Eogers, — I am very much obliged to you for the separate 

 copy of Focke's paper. If you are writing to him, please thank him 

 for putting my name on his list, and also for speaking so kindly of 

 me in it. Please also tell him that 1 do not live in a district of 

 Brambles, and have therefore to be satisfied in my study with 

 herbarium specimens chiefly, and therefore labour under much 

 difficulty. I quite agree with Focke that the rare forms, found 

 perhaps in a single small district, are very difficult to allocate. But 

 we must have some name for them, in most cases : in all cases where 

 we cannot find some fair cause for placing them as abnormal forms 

 of some named plant. I should be inclined to this latter course in 

 very many cases if I could see my way to what I believe will prove 

 the true course, but unfortunately, in many cases I cannot see it. 

 I much wish to learn what are the aggregate species, but am often 

 obliged to leave the segregates separate from want of suflScient 

 knowledge of the forms. Briggs and you, who live in Bramble 

 districts, might in due time do much for us in this respect. — Believe 

 me to be, very truly yours, Charles C. Babington. 



To T. E. Archer Briggs, Esq. 



Cambridge, June 7, 1890. 

 Dear Mr. Briggs, — I am very much inclined to think that our name 

 Dumnoniensis will stand, and that it is not rotundatus (Miill.). Is it 

 not arcuate-prostrate 1 Levent says of his plant in " Herb. G-enev." 

 "tige dress6e arqu^e au sommet." That also has a remarkably 

 spongy angular stem with depressed flat sides forming depressed 

 faces rather than furrows. Genev. says "canalicul6e," which may 

 mean such a form, or may not. Its panicle also seems very 

 different. I have a good series in " Herb. Genev." Our name must 

 be spelt with a u not an a. I have a note that I think Devoniensis 

 belongs to Schlechtendalii, and another expressing doubt : but 

 allowing that, it is probably a form going under aggregate macro- 

 phjllus. I certainly look with much interest for Focke's views on 

 this subject (which I do not find that he has given). I have been 

 looking at R. erythrinus. Its want of felt seems to keep it off from 

 rhamnifolius. I cannot see the alliance with Sprengelii of which 

 Genevier speaks. It may indeed be very near to the B. nemoralis. 

 It does not seem to me to agree very well with Genevier's specimens 

 of erythrinus, although it is not unlikely that they are the same 

 species. Then again there are specimens which we have been used 

 to call Lindleianus which are very like it. The pyramidal panicle 



