78 
a fruiting specimen in the Herbarium collected and named by 
Maximowicz himself. The locality given is ‘‘Nivpon: in 
declivio continentali vuleani Fudzi-yama, in syivis; November, 
1892.’’ The second form described by Maximowicz “‘ loci magis 
demiissis calidioribus orta,’’ as having branched biennial stems 
and yellow fruits, is quite ‘different, and may be the K. pungens, 
Camb. (Phonzo Zoufou, xxxi. fol. 14, recto), a true /daeobatus, 
and also a native of the island of Nippon. The double state (2) 
is the one figured in the ‘‘ Botanical Magazine’’ (t. 1783) as 
R. rosaefolius coronarius, Sims. is Maximowicz regards 
as a “‘lusus’’ of the single form (1), and he states of it that it is 
Pak eiace cultivated in Japanese gardens, and may possibly 
mature fruit, as perfect reproductive organs are frequently 
present. It is on the strength of the two single forms mentioned 
that he adds in the diagnosis of this variety B coronarius “‘ fructo 
rubro vel luteo succulento.”’ Maximowicz also cites HRubus 
chinensis, Ser., as a doubtful synonym, but this proves different, 
as will be seen ’ presently. 
Some four years later, Franchet and Savatier enumerated the 
Sieawibiey Haake as ‘‘ Rubus rosifolius {3 coronarius,”’ 
adding the Japanese native name “* Buru itsigo (Tanaka), 
citing a figure of a flowering specimen in the Japanese work, 
‘* Phonzo Zoufou,”’ vol. xxv. fol. 15, recto, ‘“‘ sub Tokouri itsigo, 
and a specimen collected by Savatier on Mt. Fuji-yama in this 
state is preserved at . 
In 1898 what is clearly the alpine dwarf form of Maximowicz 
was figured in the ‘‘ Wiener Illustrirte Garten-Zeitung’’ as the 
Japanese Erdbeer-Himbeere, and it is said to have been intro- 
duced to cultivation two years previously. qn the following year 
a note was contributed to the ‘‘ Gardeners’ Chronicle > by Mr. 
C. Wolley Dod to the effect that in the previous autumn he 
received a small plant from a lady, who got it from France —— 
the name of “ Fraisier-Framboisier,’’ and it was said to be 
hybrid BP Stes a strawberry and a raspberry. The slant 
appeared so unlike both oe parents that Mr. Wolley Dod 
had sent it to be named, and was told ‘‘ on good aed » that 
it was Rubus rosaefolius, Smith, a native of Tropical A This 
determination seems to have been an echo of the aignel error 
of Maximowicz. 
In 1899 Focke, unaware of its a with Maximpwicz’s 
alpine dwarf form (1) described the sa oe as a new Rubus, 
of which he had received flowering sdk fruiting specimens from 
Inspector Rettig, of Jena, adding that this was R. sorbifolius 
of gardens, but not of Maximowicz. e name “‘zllecebrosus 
was given in allusion to the attractive fruit, ae the plant as to 
habit was compared with R. xanthocarpus, Bur. & Franch. Its 
native country was stated to be probably Japan. In his later 
Monograph, Focke placed the plant in the section Zdaeobatus just 
efore R. rosaefolius, Smith, and he compared it with R. fracini- 
folius, Poir., but this is not ae proper position, for the drupeoles 
when mature do not part freely from the persistent receptacle, as 
in the Raspberry set, but are firmly attached to it, both breaking 
away together. In fact it belongs to ‘ho. section Cylactis, and to 
| 
| 
e | 
