HISTORICAL SKETCH. 9 



Unfortunately I must decline being considered as at all 

 answerable for most of the statements there made. 



Two species are characterized for the first time in 

 Britain in my Flora of Cainhridyeshire (1860), viz. R. aWicei- 

 folius and R. tuberculatus . 



Mr Syme in the "new edition" of English Botany has 

 followed my arrangement, calling my species sub-species. 

 Only some of the plants thus ranked as sub-species are 

 represented on the plates, most of those remaining without 

 figures which have not been published in the original Eng- 

 lish Botany or its Supjylement. Ifnfortunately the want of 

 attention to the colour and clothing of the leaves which 

 exist in the originals of these plates has not been supplied 

 in this new work. 



In 1867 Mr Lees published his Botany of Worcestershire^ 

 at the end of which he has given his latest views upon the 

 species of Ruhi. In many respects these accord with my 

 ideas, but in some cases his nomenclature is different, and in 

 others the plants which he had in view are apparently not 

 always the same as mine. 



It is believed that this is a tolerably complete accoimt 

 of the progressive study of British Brambles. No attempt is 

 made to treat the writings of continental botanists in a 

 similai- manner, but I may name those authors whose works 

 have been of the most use to me in my researches. They 

 are Arrhenius, by his Monographia Ruborum Sicecice (I S4:0)y 

 and his notes inserted in Fries's Mantissa tertia (18-1:2) and 

 Summa Vegetahilium Scandinavice (ISiG) ; Bluff and Fin- 

 gerhuth, in the Compendium Florae Germanicce, ed. 1 (1825) 

 and ed. 2 (1837); Petermann, in his Flora Lipsiensis (1838); 

 Godron, in his Flore de Lorraine^ ed. 1 (1843), ed. 2(1857), 

 the Flore de France (1848), and his Monograpjiie des Ruhus 



