﻿Rydberg: Notes on Rosaceae 149 



the new name for this. There may be another older name that 

 some people would regard as available. Babington in Gardener's 

 Chronicle,* objects to the fact that gardeners have distributed a 

 "well-known" plant under a new name, R. americanus. He 

 claimed: "It is singular that nurserymen will so often issue plants 

 with new names when old and authentic ones exist, and may be 

 discovered without much difficulty. The Blackberry issued under 

 the name of R. americanus is the R. villosus of Alton (Hort. Kew., 

 ed. I, vol. ii., p. 210), and well known under that name to American 

 botanists, as I learn from Dr. Asa Gray. Why give a new name 

 when one already exists? Why give us all the trouble which we 

 have had to find out its real name? But there is a curious point 

 connected with this issue under the name of R. americanus. 

 In most cases R. laciniatus came with it, and is, as far as I have 

 seen, the prolific fruiting plant. So we have two quite distinct 

 plants issued together under one, and that a new name. Can 

 nothing be done to put an end to these things? They can hardly 

 be of any benefit to the tradesmen, even if that were any excuse." 



The plant regarded as R. villosus by Gray and other American 

 authors was not the same as R. villosus Ait. The plant, therefore, 

 that Babington had in mind was our R. nigrohaccus. As a syn- 

 onym is given under R. americanus, it is published according to 

 the American Code, but which plant does it belong to, R. villosus 

 Alton or R. villosus of Bigelow and of Gray? This R. americanus 

 is older than i?. americanus Britton and therefore available. If 

 regarded as the same as R. villosus Ait., which is cited as a syn- 

 onym, it should take its place as that is antedated by R. villosus 

 Thunb. It should then replace the later R. plicatif alius Blan- 

 chard, which is the same. If regarded as the same as R. villosus, 

 as understood by Bigelow and Gray, it would replace R. nigro- 

 haccus Bailey. But whom should we cite as the author of R. 

 americanus} We could not very well cite Babington, who strenu- 

 ously objected to the name. The best to do is therefore to regard 

 R. americanus Hort. as "merely incidentally mentioned." 



Blanchard, followed by Fernald. Britton, Bicknell, and Brain- 

 erd, has adopted R. allegheniensis Porter for this species. R. 

 allegheniensis was based on R. villosus montanus Porter. When 



