4 HISTORICAL SKETCH. 



"VVeihe; (8) R. suherectus; (9) R. Idceus; (10) R. corylifo- 

 lius; and (11) R. ccesius. 



We now turn to Lindley's Synopsis of the British Flora, 

 ed. 1 (1829), where there are twenty-fonr species enumerated 

 and shortly characterized in accordance with the *' truly 

 excellent Monograph of the German Ruhi by Drs Weihe 

 and Nees." I shall not here enter upon a discussion of 

 these plants, for they will be found noticed under the 

 respective species to which they are considered as referrible, 

 but simply state that three supposed new species are re- 

 corded, viz. R. abru2)tus, now known to be a state of R. 

 discolor; R. diver si/olius, concerning which much discus- 

 sion has arisen, either from some mistake in the naming 

 of specimens or from the displacement of a label in the 

 garden of the Horticultural Society^; and R. echinatus, a 

 plant apparently ranging under R. Koehleri. In the second 

 edition of the Synopsis (1835), Lindley quite altered his 

 views concerning brambles ; for, although he still gives short 

 characters for eighteen plants, he states that "if it had 

 been possible to prove the four species \R. suherectus, fruti- 

 cosus, corylifolius and ccesius^ to be themselves physiologi- 

 cally distinct," he would have then "reduced all the others" 

 to them; but as proof even of that seemed to him to be 

 wanting, he adopted a middle course, and grouped the 

 species of his former edition into sections as Idcei, Suberecti, 

 Coryli/olii, Ccesii, and Fruticosi. He also made some 

 alterations in the nomenclature by calling his former R. 

 fa.stigiatus = R. fissus, his R. echinatus = R. rudis, his R. 

 pallidus = R. Koehleri, and reducing a few of the other 



^ If specimens are to be believed this is a distinct species closely 

 allied to R fuscoater ; but if the bush in the garden is the authority 

 (although repudiated by Lindley) then it is R. leucostachys. 



