432 CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. [1890 



I have not noticed in true Lindleianus. Focke seems to be quite sure 

 about the name, and that must have very great weight with us. 

 Genevier's arrangement is so peculiar that it cannot have much 

 weight with us. It seems to me exceedingly artificial, but even so, 

 why is erythnnus placed next to Sprengelii 1 I find in " Herb. 

 Hiern" a specimen from Ilford Bridges which you have named 

 R. Hystrix. Surely that can hardly be correct. It seems to me to 

 be more nearly related to R. diversifolius, and is exceedingly like 

 the R. oreogeton (?) (Mr. Linton from Shirley, 19 vii. 1877). On 

 that I find a note that I thought it very like R. Laschii (Focke), and 

 they are doubtless very closely allied. I am again much troubled 

 by the R. foliosus. I think that your plant is pyramidalis (Miill.), 

 Focke 261 (not the true Banningii). I also think that Bloxam was 

 correct in calling his Twycross plant atro-ruhens in 1869, but 

 Wirtgen seems never to have described that ; and Miiller calls it 

 adoriiatus in 1859. I see you do not notice the R. scaber (?) of St. 

 Rudeaux (1877), which I have referred to R. debilis. What did 

 Focke call it, if he saw it ? The name cannot stand, as there is a 

 debilis of J. Ball (1872). N. E. Brown intends to call it cognatus in 

 the suppl. to " Sym. E. B." now in the press. I am much obliged by 

 the extract from Focke's letter, although I do not quite understand 

 it. Does he mean that you Iiave the true R. Lejeunii, or that we 

 have not got the true plant ? Under what name did the " Ham 

 Valley and Lancy " plant ever come to me ? I can find none such 

 specimens. I have come to the conclusion that R. Lejeunii as 

 known to me in England is the R. Fuckelii of Wirtgen, described 

 by Focke on page 308. I possess the Herb. rub. rhen. specimen 

 there referred to, and think many of our specimens accord well with 

 it. Then again I have others which seem much like R. disjundus 

 (Miill.) especially one from Limerick. R. disjuncttis seems to have 

 divaricate panicle-branches, and Fuckelii (and your specimens from 

 St. Germans, Outness Bridge, and St. Mellion) have them erect- 

 patent. I must confess that this puzzles me greatly. I should like 

 to find that our almost obovate lanceolate-lea-ved plant is disjunctus = 

 Lejeunii (Genev.), and the much broader leaved is Fuckelii ; and the 

 two forms of one species : leaving Focke's Lejeunii as different and 

 unknown to me. I hope you will understand all this — I confess I 

 hardly do myself. — Yours ever (may we long continue to puzzle 

 each other in this way), CHARLES 0. Babington. 



To T. R. Archer Briggs, Esq. 



Cambridge, July 30, 1890. 



Dear Mr. Briggs, — Many thanks for the information concerning 

 Rubus Dumnoniensis. I think that it is certainly not R. rotundus. I have 

 placed Pi. erythrinus next to R. Lindleianus, and find much difficulty 

 in distinguishing them from herbarium specimens. Your paper has 

 helped me greatly, but there are many specimens which admit of 



