BLANCHARD: RUBUS OF EASTERN NortH AMERICA 431 
nearly the same as that of R. alleghaniensis. I have searched 
carefully for it in New England and the maritime provinces of 
Canada, but have not given it much attention in the west and 
south. I have collected it near Washington in Virginia, at Ashe- 
ville, North Carolina, near where Michaux collected it, and in 
Michigan, but I rely mostly on herbarium specimens in fixing 
its range west of New England. Its slender, slightly hispid form 
is much more common than the very hispid form, which seems to 
have been mistaken by some for R. trivialis and by others for 
R. setosus. The leaves, if not too badly exposed, remain till the 
next season’s growth is well advanced, and flowering specimens 
should, if possible, be secured on which some of the leaves remain. 
Helpful figures are given by both Bailey and Britton. 
RUBUS PROCUMBENS Muhlenberg 
This is given in Gray’s New Manual as Rubus villosus Ait. 
on the opinion of Professor Bailey, who thinks the specimens from 
which R. villosus was described, and which he saw in London, are 
the same as ‘‘our northern dewberry,”’ which, by the way, is as 
much southern as northern. However, Bailey says it occurs in 
the south as far as ‘‘ Florida, Kansas, Oklahoma and Arizona.” 
R. villosus was described in Hortus Kewensis, which was a descrip- 
tive catalogue of all the plants growing in the Kew Botanic Garden, 
of which Wm. Aiton was the head. The descriptions were not 
the work of Aiton, who seems to have been a gardener rather than 
a botanist and deposited dried specimens in the herbarium of Sir 
Joseph Banks, but were written in the herbarium by Solander. 
So Hortus Kewensis is the work of Aiton in the same sense that 
Michaux’s Flora Bor.-Am. is the work of Michaux. The descrip- 
tion is so short and poor that nothing can be made of it. This 
accounts for its so easily deceiving the author of Michaux’s Flora 
and the American botanists. The meaning of the name alone 
caused them to use it. 
It is by no means certain that R. villosus is the same as R. 
procumbens. The illustration Bailey has given of the original speci- 
mens shows a very different plant from the typical R. procumbens. 
The name R. procumbens was first given in Muhlenberg’s 
Catalogue, but Barton, in 1818, in his Compendium Florae 
