436 CHARLES CARDALE BABINGTON. [1891 



To T. R. Archer Briggs, Esq. 



Camkhidge, Jan. 5, 1891. 

 Dear Mr. Briggs, — There seems much difficulty in the name of 

 Ruhus Lcjeunii. I fancy that the plant which I have been accustomed 

 to call by that name must take that of B. Fuckelii (Wirtg.). It is 

 Genevier's plant (p. 137) but not Wirtgen's. I think that that will 

 go into a rather unnatural group called Efjregii by Friderichsen 

 and Gelert — " Turiones fere glabri vel parce pilosi glandulis stipi- 

 tatis setisque* gracilibus sparsis vel paucissimis (vel in singulis 

 internodiis absentibus) muniti. Inflorescentia composita, rami et 

 pedunculi et imprimis bractea glandulis stipitatis sparsis pilis fere 

 aequilongis, vel numerosis inaequalibus pilos partim multo super- 

 antibus." They place in it egregius, Neumani, Gelertii, anglo- 

 saxonicus, mucronatus, cimhricus. You may probably not have seen 

 their Danish paper apart, with which I have been favoured. Focke's 

 R. Lejeunii (which I suppose is the true plant) = yours, and is very 

 close indeed to rosaceus. He says nothing abovit the calyx which is 

 so markedly reflexed from fruit on your plant, but stated to be 

 reflexed in R. G. Focke seems to have known but little about it. 

 Also Godron ("Mon. Rub. Nancy") sayst of sepals " fructu mature- 

 •scente reflexa." We must be therefore still in doubt about the true 

 name. One of yours marked as doubtfully accepted by Focke as 

 Lejeunii seems to me exceedingly like R. oreades (Miill. and Wirtg.). 

 I have their 81 before me at this moment and 154, as well as several 

 specimens named by Genevier. It is ticketed "i^. Lejeunii, hedge- 

 bank, Derriford, July 30, 1890. Focke thinks this Lejeunii.'" Can 

 all yours be really oreades ? Possibly this shews that oreades and 

 Lejeunii are the same. I will look again into the questionable diver si- 

 folius from near Common Wood, with your remarks. R. thyrsiflorus 

 {thyrsifer ?). I am thankful for your remark that this cannot go with 

 the thyrsifer of Plymouth. Your doubtful niacrophyllus from Crab- 

 tree is very like the specimens from Baker, placed with absconditus by 

 Genevier, but it has not the strong hooked panicle-prickles of those 

 specimens. I do not think that it can belong to absconditus. I 

 cannot find anything quite like it. I am glad to learn that Focke 

 names the Fursdon Sylvaticus as we do. Its differing slightly from 

 the German plant is not at all wonderful. These are all I think that 

 you refer to in the letter of Dec. 19. This severe weather, the 

 Therm, down to 3° outside my study window, and the distance of 

 fully half-a-mile of the Herbarium from our house, has separated me 

 for a time from my work. I dare not now expose myself as I used 

 to do. — Believe me to be, very truly yours, Charles C. Babington. 



To Henry Groves, Esq. 



Cambridge, Feb. 11, 1891. 

 Dear Mr. Groves, — Surely they must have the Atriplex Babingtonii 

 on their coast — it is so common on ours. But the only specimens I 

 • Setae = aciculi. f Page 17. 



