U. R. AFFINIS. 71 



correctly to R. affinis; but it must be confessed that we 

 now include under the latter name a somewhat heterogene- 

 ous assemblage of forms, some of which will probably be 

 found to belong to other species when they are better known. 

 The true li. affinis (even the same bush) is very variable, 

 for its inflorescence forms a tolerably compound panicle or 

 quite simple raceme. 



The li. fcistujiatiis of Lindley is considered by him to be 

 the same as his B. Jissus (Syn. ed. 2) ; but the specimens 

 obtained from the Horticultural Garden with the former 

 name are li. affinis (W. and N.). One of them is stated to 

 have been brought from Dunkeld in Perthshire. Borrer 

 remarks that they are " like specimens from Mertens of M. 

 affinis (W. and X.)." The li. fastigiatus of Lindl. Herb, 

 is a remarkably large [)lant from Ayrshire. I believe it to 

 be K. affinis, although a detached leaf has its terminal 

 leaflet partially subdivided as in li. Jissus. This leaf may 

 have been the cause of Lindley's opinion. I find no speci- 

 men of R. Jissus in his Herbarium except one named R. 

 suberectus var. from Scotland. 



The more markedly suberect forms of R. affinis, often 

 much resemble li. 2)^icatus; they will be readily distin- 

 guished from it if attention is paid to the specific characters 

 of the species. The arching form approaches R. rhamni- 

 f alius, from which its diflerent leaves and the felted border 

 of the sepals will distinguish it. R. affinis seems much 

 better placed amongst the Saberecti than with the Rhamni- 

 folii where it has been arranged by British botanists. 



The R. affinis of Leighton's Flora consists of only two 

 varieties, although their being marked as ^ and y might 

 lead to the supposition that there was also a var. a. Of 

 these var. ^ is a form of li. rliamnif alius ; but var. y! 

 belongs, as stated by Leighton [Phytol. iii. 73), to R. coryli- 

 f alius. The R. affinis of the 1st edition of my Manual is 



