5. R. PLICATUS. 65 



7i\ nitidus "very different from" his Ji. plicatus and what 

 he called " a genuine bramble." If I only possessed such 

 specimens as are in his Herbarium, I should very probably 

 hold the same opinion, but my large series of specimens 

 shows that they are forms of the same species. It is 

 hardly necessary to add that the R. nitidus (Bell Salt.) is a 

 very different plant which is called R. Lindleianus in this 

 essay. 



The R. plicatus jS carinatus (Bell Salt.) seems to be nearly 

 as closely, indeed probably more closely, allied to R. affinis 

 than to R. plicatus. I incline to combine it with the former. 



I possess a single specimen referred to above which 

 was gathered near Ban try in the county of Cork, and 

 closely resembles R. montanus (Wirtg.) but has characters 

 more like those of R. plicatus. Both its shoots are thickly 

 covered with short strong hooked prickles, and there are 

 occasionally a few small prickles on the sepals. I believe 

 it to be a form of R. plicatus. But a careful examination 

 of the specimen of R. montanus (Wirtg.), j)ublished in the 

 Herb. Rah. rhen. (No. 3.), leads me to concur in the opinion 

 of Metsch (Linncea^ 1. c. 140), that it is a form oi R. affinis. 



M. Genevier identifies a plant from Tory on Dartmoor 

 with the R. hamidosus (Miill.). It has an abundance of 

 strong declining (and some deflexed) prickles on its stem, 

 and its panicle is furnished with i-ather numerous strong 

 hooked prickles, but in other respects I do not see any 

 characters by which to distinguish it from R. plicatus. 



Mr Borrer remarks in his Herbarium that " Arrhenius 

 shows R. plicatus (W. and N.) to be the primary 7i'. 

 fruticosus (Linn.), and a flowering specimen in Herb. 

 Linn, (with authenticating number) confirms it. Some 

 fragments of our R. fruticosus [i?. discolor"] are also pre- 

 served there and so named, but not numbered." It is 

 nearly, if not quite certain that Arrhenius is correct, and 



G— 3 



