19. R. VILLICAULIS. 145 



of R. infcAfAiR (W. & N.). It seems to my eye to have 

 exceedingly little ia common with the R. infestus, and is 

 undistinguishable (excej)t in being rather more prickly) from 

 some specimens of R. pampinosus (Lees), which 1 place con- 

 fidently under R. villicaulis. 



P derasus; caule patenti-piloso setoso aculeis tenui- 

 bus patentibus vel paululiim declinatis e basi compressa, 

 foliis ternatis vel quinatis, foliolis tenuibus subtus in 

 venis tantum pilosis, foliolo terminali late cordato-obo- 

 vato cuspidate, panicula setosa. 



R. derasus Miill. ! Mon. 166 (1859). 



R. vulyaj'is Lindl. ! Syn. ed. 1. 93 (not W. and N.). 



R. adsitus Genev. ! (sp.) 



Our plant is exceedingly like the authentic specimens of 

 R. derasus preserved in Mr Baker's Herbarium. It is also 

 determined to be the R. vulgaris of Lindley's first edition 

 by a specimen so named by him for Leighton. It has much 

 more setae than I have ever seen upon even the most ab- 

 normal forms of R. villicaulis, and may very probably be a 

 distinct species connecting the Villicaules with the Radulce 

 or even the Bellardiani. The tips of the long aciculiform 

 setse are deciduous, and then they may be easily confounded 

 with the aciculiform prickles; but the proper setae are very 

 short, Bs> are also the hairs. There are very few setse (on 

 our plant, but not on that of Midler) and many aciculi on 

 the flowering shoot. Leighton's specimen was gathered at 

 Almond Park, Salop; my specimens were found near Capel 

 Curig in N. Wales, and Douglas, Isle of Man. Prof. Oliver 

 found what is probably the same plant between Bonar 

 Bridge and Lairg, Sutherlandshire, and Mr Bloxam sends it 

 under the provisional name of R. Bakeri from Twycross, 

 Leicestershire. If not a distinct species, and then it must 



13 



