1892—93] BOTANICAL CORRESPONDENCE. 439 



I have been very ill for some months, and so only now know of 

 what you are doing, or should have applied sooner. — Believe me to 

 be, very truly yours, Charles C. Babington {per A. M. B,). 



To the Rev. W. Moyle Rogers. 



Brookside, Cambridge, April 7, 1892. 



Dear Mr. Rogers, — I am rejoiced to see your essay as a Key to 

 our " Rubi." It is much wanted. I have been laid aside by a long 

 illness since last September, and am only now just beginning to get 

 about the bedroom, a thing to be indeed greatly thankful for at my 

 age. I have therefore been totally separated from my "Rubi." I 

 have got a large quantity of MS. towards a projected "Revision of 

 the British Rubi," but when my plan will be completed I cannot 

 at all tell. I see that the first fascicle of "British Rubi" is now 

 ready, and fear I may not have subscribed for it. I particularly 

 wish to have a copy in our Herbarium, and hope that I am not now 

 too late. I look to you as an authority on Ruhi, although I hope 

 to do something more in future. — Believe me to be, very truly 

 yours, Charles C. Babington {per A. M. B.). 



To the same. 



Brookside, Cambridge, June 24, 1892. 



Dear Mr. Rogers, — You have made a great discovery, and may I 

 think, take the specimen as really the R. Bmreri of Salter. He was 

 so accurate in his naming (as far as we then knew), that I have no 

 ■doubt about his having given the true plant to Borrer. I do not 

 think that he issued different plants under that name, and would be 

 specially careful in this case. I am happy to. say that I am getting 

 on, but not able to examine my specimens. I think that 5'ou may 

 be quite satisfied with what you have found as deciding Salter's 

 plant. If my idea of its being the intectus of Miiller is correct, that 

 will not prevent Salter's name being retained. Go on boldly, for I 

 believe you are correct. I leave it to you. I cannot do anything 

 in the matter now. I suppose that Focke would be of the same 

 opinion, and call the plant Bmreri. — Yours truty, Charles C. 

 Babington {per A. M. B. ). 



To Alfred Fryer, Esq. 



Cambridge, Dec. 5, 1893. 



Dear Mr. Fryer, — I am very sorry to say that I have mislaid your 

 letter, but can answer the question in it about Fotamogeton longif alius. 

 I believe that the specimen in the Edinburgh Herbarium is not 

 correctly named. I quite think that I told them so many years 

 ■since. Only two specimens were obtained, not by me, but by Mr. J. 

 Ball. One I have here, the other he kept. Please look at the 

 ■" E. B. S.," plate 2847, and look at the stipules of the Edinburgh 



