376 Mr. F. J. A. lioit on a imjipuaed new species of iUibiis. 



wide gap between them, the latter sj)ecies being rightly, I think, 

 referred by Mr. Bloxam to his group of " Rubi Csesii," possessing 

 subterete barren stems, with often a glaucous bloom and some- 

 times a few snjall true set?e, somewhat subulate prickles, and 

 many of the drupes in each fruit abortive. Again, it is often 

 difficult to distinguish dried specimens of jR. iinbricatus and the 

 three species above mentioned, although no one accustomed to 

 look at Brambles could confound them when growing. The pre- 

 sent plant may be known froni the larger and more typical forms 

 of the protean R. affi/iis by the structure of the branches of the 

 panicle, which are racemose and not cymose, and their much 

 slighter degree of divarication from the rachis, and by the sepals 

 being abruptly cuspidate and not gradually acuminate; (to the 

 less developed forms, which apparently constitute IN'Ir. Lees^s 

 R. lentiginoaus, having suberect stems and nearly simple panicles, 

 and growing chiefly in heathy places, it bears no resemblance :) 

 from R. cordifolius'^ by the laxer and less pyramidal panicle, the 

 absence of tomentuni on the under side of the leaves, and the 

 agreeable flavour, globular shape and glossy lustre of the fruit, 

 which in the latter species are very peculiar, when able to ripen 

 freely, being remarkably large, oblong, with somewhat flattened 

 drupes, dull and burnished rather than glossy, and very insipid ; 

 (it should be observed that all these three species grow in the 

 same neighbourhood) : from R. incurvatus by the leaves being 

 hairy, but not clothed with a firm velvet beneath, and by the yel- 

 lowish green not flesh-coloured styles. The numerous secondary 

 shoots of the barren stem, the imbricated and convex leaves and 

 leaflets, and the absence of tomentum on the upper part of the 

 panicle, sufiiciently separate it from all three species. 



The extraordinary tendency of R. cai-pinifoUus and R. macro- 

 phyllus to assume the most unlike forms renders it possible that 

 they may be confused with R. imbricatus as with several other 

 species. In this case single dried specimens are almost useless, 

 but an intelligent examination of numerous bushes in the same 

 district will commonly detect the aberrancy of type : both are 

 sure to throw out occasionally superfluous small prickles (or 

 even true aciculi) and a few sette or subsessile purple glands 

 from their barren stems, and a tendency to puffiness and flac- 



* Perhaps I may be allowed to take this opportunity of expressing my 

 surprise at Dr. Bell Salter's union of B.. nitidus of English authors with this 

 species. I carefully watched the two plants last summer growing freely 

 iutennLxed in the same hedge, and in their sjjortive variations deceiving the 

 eye for a moment, but for a moment only. When autumn came, the fruits 

 of R. cordifolius were invariably perfected those of R. nitidus for the most 

 part abortive, throughout my neighbourhood. Facts like these appear to 

 me valuable collateral proofs of the distinctness of species. Thus I found 

 last year Luzula Forsferi always fruitful, L. j^Hosa usually the reverse. 



