1890] BOTANICAL CORRESPONDENCE. 433 



much doubt. If the colour of the flower is of value, as I suppose 

 to be the case, we are quite unable to decide from herbarium 

 specimens in some cases. Your specimens (the only representation 

 of the plant which I possess) agree very well with those of Genevier 

 in the Herbarium. Do you know Mr. Ley's R. Genevierii 1 I have 

 not seen the Clifford Wood plant, but have one from him from 

 Carey Wood, which is probably the same. I have a beautiful series 

 in the " Herb. Genev.," which seem to agree with the Carey Wood 

 plant, and with one received many years since from near Gourock 

 in Scotland. N. E. Brown proposes to name my E. debilis anew, 

 and to call it E. cognatus in the Supplement to "Syme's English 

 Botany." I have his proof sheet before me. I find a note in my 

 MS., that " on some of the stems the prickles are many, but short ; 

 they are usually moderate in quantity. Are the setae deciduous ? 

 I find them tolerably abundant on some stems, but apparently 

 absent from others. Sometimes the toothing of the leaves is rather 

 strong, and shews a tendency to become double." I know nothing 

 of the true E. Lejeunii in England, and think that our so-named 

 plant is E. Fuckelii. And now for a new point. I have just been 

 seeing what I could do with E. sertiflorus (1) and the Lohrii, and 

 incline to the opinion that we have both, and that they are distinct, 

 or at least distinguishable. The former has felted leaves, with 

 what seems to be different toothing. Have you noticed anything 

 of this kind 1 Have you made out anything about the plant from 

 Shalaford, July, 1886, and July, 1874, and Horrabridge, August 22, 

 1869, which we used to confound with E. ramosus of Bloxam ? I 

 hardly think that I can be correct in calling it E. macrostemo7i. I 

 think that Focke gave no name to it. Has he since done so ? It 

 seems to belong to the Ehamnifolii, and is not much like Focke's 

 specimen {Euh. Select. 60). What becomes of the Lyme Regis 

 E. Winteri 1 — is it one of the allies of E. ramosus, or the R. G. 

 El,, discolor 1 I have not seen it. Can they both go to my aggregate 

 plant E. nemoralis, which includes Maassii, Muenteri, amphichloros, 

 Neiimani ? It now seems to me that its true place is near these, 

 though perhaps not in that aggregate. I wish Focke would tell us 

 something about his E. Devoniensis. I have sent a notice of the 

 E. Dumnoniensis to the "Journal of Botany," as it may as well be 

 put on record, but suppose it will not appear for a few months. 

 What is the E. scaher of Bickley Vale accepted by Focke ? Have I 

 not got it with the locality otherwise described? Is it St. Rudeaux ? 

 Is it the E. scaher of my "Notes" (1886) ? I have now got fairly 

 through the plants as far as the end of the Eadulae ; and am. about 

 to take my holiday in the north. So no more of troubling you 

 about them until October. Please God that I am preserved in 

 health and strength, I hope to go on with the Koehleriani then. 

 But it may be most convenient to you to answer this before that 

 time : if so, please do so ; and I can keep it for use then. — Yours 

 very truly, Charles C. Babington. 



28 



