84 8. R. RHi^IXIFOLIUS. 



Ruhi Germanici, is veiy unlike that of our plant, wliicli 

 closely resembles what is figured in that work as Ji. cardi- 

 folius. The panicle there given as that of i?. rhamnifolius 

 well represents that of our R. rliartiaifolius, although with 

 us the upper part is often shorter, denser, and more dome- 

 like. The specimen in my copy of Leighton's Fasciculus is 

 very characteristic and agrees exactly with that called "K. 

 rhamnifolius, la forme ordinaire" by Esenbech. I do not 

 find more than one specimen that agrees well with our R. 

 rhamnifolius in my rather large collection of foreign Rubi. 

 I identify our plants with the R. rhamnifolius and R. corcli- 

 folius of the Ruhi Germanici on account of their agreement 

 in most respects with the plates and descriptions in that 

 work and with the specimen named by Nees von Esenbech 

 for Leighton. Nevertheless it seems not impossible that our 

 plant may really be different from that similarly named by 

 continental botanists. That is a question which* I have 

 found myself unable to decide without the aid of good and 

 authentic foreign specimens. It must be left for determi- 

 nation by some botanist more fortunately situated in that 

 respect. 



The R. rhamnifolius of Billot seems to agi-ee very well 

 with the typical plant (as figured in Ruhi Germ.) and with 

 English specimens. 



As has already been remarked, the fully developed 

 panicle of R. rhamnifolius has a rather pyramidal outline, 

 but it is very blunt and dense at the top. As the distance 

 from the top increases the branches lengthen and separate 

 more and more from each other; but even the lowest branch 

 falls short of its accompanying leaf. Nevertheless occa^ 

 sionally the panicle is narrower and somewhat thyrsoid in 

 its upper part, although even then it is blunt. Cordate or 

 ovate or obovate terminal leaflets seem to accompany either 

 of these forms of panicle indifferently; but perhaps the 



