438 BLANCHARD: RUBUS OF EASTERN NORTH AMERICA 
some limit. Some day a second, perhaps greater Linnaeus, a 
species and genus smasher will appear who will be idolized in the 
future as Linnaeus is [?] today. 
Of the various species of Rubus I have described, according to 
what has already become known, some will be found to be only 
local, some will have a limited range, and some as I have already 
found will have a wide range. Whether the blackberries in our 
area have been evoluted, mutated, or hybridized from one, two, 
or ten original species is a matter of pure speculation, though in- 
teresting and profitable no doubt, but that names are needed for 
a reasonable number of the common forms is a fact so patent that 
argument is unnecessary. The attempt to use formulas of pedi- 
gree for plant names reminds one of the pre-Linnaean nomencla- 
ture. Such a formula as R. alleghaniensis 14 < R. procumbens 14 
X R. Andrewsianus 14, which is one of the simplest, for the name 
of a common and constant plant is not likely to appeal to most 
people, though it might be very useful in describing a plant. It is 
also useful in marking odd specimens in the herbarium, and may 
well be introduced into floras to a limited extent. 
My observations lead me to think that Mr. E. P. Bicknell’s 
R. Baileyanus is a shade form of R. procumbens, that his R. 
Enslenui is a common sand form of the same species, and, if these 
two assumed species were transplanted so as to grow under such 
conditions as typical R. procumbens usually has, they would in 
time return to a form unmistakably that of R. procumbens. It is 
to be hoped he will thus transplant them. If R. flagellaris Willd. 
is an American plant it probably is a form of R. hispidus. The 
figure to which Mr. Bicknell refers does not indicate any remark- 
able variation from R. hispidus. I have never seen a constant 
intergrade between R. hispidus and R. procumbens, but I have 
seen many that were not constant. 
I have not seen all of Mr. Ashe’s Rubi but his R. Boyntoni is 
a good local species, very frequent in much of Buncombe County, 
North Carolina, as I know from observation. _R. floridus Tratt. 
may be a local species, but it cannot have a great range, unless, as 
I suspect, it is a name given to the terete ends of a form of R. 
Andrewsianus not rare around Philadelphia and Washington. 
This form has recurving branches which are armed with recurved 
