86 8. E. RHAMNIFOLIUS. 



plant inteuded by Dr Bell Salter when quoting R. affinis as 

 a synonyme of his It. rhamni/olius P nitidus (Bot. Gaz. ii. 

 118), for there are three specimens named R. affinis in his 

 Herbarium, fi^om the Isle of Wight, from Selborne, and from 

 Poole. The Isle of Wight plant and that from Poole are 

 R. corylifolius ^ conjungens (Bab.) : that from Selborne, 

 which is noticed by him in the Phytologist (ii. 100), is 

 imperfect, but is certainly neither R. affinis nor R. coryli- 

 folius. I quite believe it to be the plant which I now call 

 R. althceifolius. 



Prof. Boreau changes the name of this plant to R. Thuil- 

 lieri (Poir.). It does not seem desirable to alter a weU- 

 known and now universally adopted name because we fancy, 

 for the proof seems to be very imperfect, that this is the 

 plant called R. tomentosus by Thuillier and R. Thuillieri by 

 Poiret. 



Sender {Fl. Hamh. 275) says that the R. rhamni/o- 

 lius of English Botany {^uijpl. t. 2604) is not a form of his R. 

 thyrsoideus, to v»^hich be refers the R. rhamni/olius and R. 

 cordi/olius of the Ruhi Germ., on the authority of specimens 

 named by Weihe. I have often suspected that the two 

 authors of that great work did not always concur in their 

 nomenclature when naming or distributing specimens. The 

 typical specimens that Leighton obtained were all named by 

 Nees von Eseubech, most of those quoted in the continental 

 books were from Weihe. Sender adds that a specimen 

 received from me as R. rhamni/olius must be named R. 

 discolor. I fear that this shows carelessness on my part, or 

 perha]3S ignorance of the true plant at the time (many years 

 since) when the specimens were sent. 



M. Genevier states that Mr Briggs's Devonshire speci- 

 mens are the R. argentatus (Miill.), and says "cette plante 

 est tres eloignee du R. rhamni/olius (W. and N.)." An 

 examination of the specimens had previously led me to the 



