﻿124 Rydberg: Notes on Rosaceae 



None of these genera I regard as distinct enough from Rubus 

 proper to retain their generic rank. 



Groups and species of Rubus 



Chamaemori 



This contains only one species, R. Chamaemorus L. The figure 



of Chamaemorus anglicana in Clusius' Historia is fictitious. No 



such plant is found in England. See further notes above under 



Chamaemorus. 



Lasiococci 

 As far as I know this group is also monotypic, the species 

 being R. lasiococcus A. Gray. It is the same as the genus Comaro- 

 hatia Greene [see above], and a part of Focke's subgenus Dalibarda. 



Pedati 



This contains only one species, R. pedatus, unless R. Fockeanus 

 and R. Gunnianus of China and Tasmania might be referred here. 

 It is also a part of Focke's subgenus Dalibarda and the genus 

 Psychrobatia Greene. 



Arctici 



This consists of R. stellatus, R. acaulis, and R. arcticus. It is 

 the same as the series Arctici of Focke's subgenus Cylactis, and the 

 genus Manteia Raf. 



Rubus stellatus Smith. Except as to the three-lobed instead 

 of three-foliolate leaves there is little difference between this species 

 and R. acaulis. If the latter should be united with R. arcticus, I 

 see no reason why R. stellatus should not be included there also. 



Rubus acaulis Michx. and R. arcticus L. Most of the American 

 material labeled R. arcticus L. belongs to R. acaulis. It is also 

 the same as R. pistillatus Smith. Smith stated that he had seen 

 it and R. arcticus cultivated together and that they remained 

 distinct. Seringe also regarded them as distinct. Rubus acaulis 

 is found neither in Europe nor in Asia except in the extreme eastern 

 part, and R. arcticus is not found on the North American arctic 

 coast or in Alaska. It is in the region where both are found, viz., 

 in Labrador, Quebec, and apparently also the Canadian Rockies, 

 where there is some trouble in distinguishing them, on account of 

 intermediate forms. May these not be hybrids? 



