17. H. SALTERI. 135 



top, all its branches being axillary and ascending; that of 

 li. Salterl is usually leafless in its upper half. 



Mr Bloxani is known to deny the pi()j>riety of the 

 combination of R. Salterl and R. calvatas. He thinks that 

 they are quite distinct species. Until I saw a remark by 

 MrSyme {Eikj. Bat. iii. IT.')) this opinion was unaccountable. 

 Mr Syme states that it results from Dr Salter having given 

 a specimen of Jt. Balfourianus to Mr Bloxam as R. Salteri. 

 It is curious that Dr Salter should have made this mistake, 

 and thus proved himself to have so slight an acquaintance 

 with a plant which was first noticed as distinct by himself. 

 But in the Botanical Gazette he joins R. Balfourianus to R. 

 Salteri, and continued of that opinion when revising his 

 arrangement of the species for the British Flora (ed. 7. 125). 

 It is clear therefore that Mr Bloxam's opinion, otherwise of 

 the highest value, is in this instance founded on a mistake 

 made by Dr Salter. 



A specimen named R, affiais, forma II, by M. Questier 

 belongs almost certainly to this species. He compares it 

 with specimens of R. Salteri, and seems to be much inclined 

 to consider them as identical. It does not exactly agree 

 with either of my varieties, but might perhaps he placed 

 between them. Its panicle seems to remove it widely from 

 R. affiuis. 



Mr Lange sent to me a specimen of a plant " in silvis 

 Fionice frequens," which was named R. diacolor by Arrhe- 

 uius. He suspected it to be the R. sylvaticus of the earlier 

 editions of my Manual. Certainly there was a time when 

 I should have included jVIr Lange's plant under that name. 

 It is almost exactly the R. calvatus of Bloxam. It will 

 have been seen under R. discolor that this specimen was 

 erroneously named by Arrhenius, an<l that his real R. discolor 

 and that of Fries is very closely allied to our plant which 

 beai-s the same name. 



