72 6. R. AFFINIS. 



also synonymous with is*, corylifolius. The R. affirds of 

 Leighton's Fasciculus is correctly named. 



The plant called R. affinis by Mertens in Herb. Borr. 

 agrees with our plant. The E. affinis of Billot (No. 54:4) 

 is certainly the same plant as that known by the name in 

 England, but the foliage of the stem is very imperfectly 

 represented by the specimen contained in my copy of that 

 collection: also its sepals are furnished with much more 

 numerous, chiefly deflexed, aciculi than I have ever seen on 

 the English plant. Sometimes indeed our plant is so sparingly 

 furnished with aciculi that they might easily escape notice. 



The B. affinis of Beichen bach's Flora exsic. (No. 781), 

 collected by Weihe at Herford in Westphalia, has the leaves 

 of the flowering shoot quinate or very nearly so, and the lower 

 leaflets imbricate and rather enlarged at the base ; also their 

 under side is almost felted. It seems probable that Weihe or 

 Beichenbach, has made a mistake and issued wrong specimens 

 under this name. The plant in my set is apparently much 

 more nearly allied to R. corylifolius than to the R. affinis 

 of the Ruhi Germanici. 



/? lentiginosus ; caulis aculeis declinatis vel deflexis, 

 foliolis subtus subglabris laDceolatis acuminatis serratis, 

 foliolo terminali lanceolate basi paululum attenuato sub- 

 cordato, paniculse elongatse foliosse subsimplici aculeis 

 uncinatis. 



R. lentiginosus IjQQ^l in Steele, 60 (1847). 



R. fastigiatus Merc. ! in Beuter Fl. Genev. 393. 



R. incarnatus Miill. Mon. 22 (1859), teste Genevier. 



This plant is probably a state of R. affinis, although Mr 

 Lees still {Bot. Wore. 47) considers it distinct specifically. 

 It seems to be almost exactly the R. fastigiatus of Mercier, 

 but hardly of the Ruhi Germanici. M. Questier sends a 

 plant closely resembling it as R. sylvatlcus, and M. Gene- 



