28. R. RUDIS. 191 



then it is difficult to draw up characters by which to distin- 

 guish it with certainty ; nevertheless the practised eye can 

 hardly be deceived even in such cases. An example of this 

 naked state is given as 11. rudis forma umbrosa in Wirtg. 

 Herb. Eub. No. 90. 



The plant from Bangor which I formerly called 7?. 

 Reidcenhacldi was incorrectly so named; for that of Weihe 

 has a stem which is "aciculis et glandulis desti tutus." My 

 plant has few of them, but they are far from being wanting. 

 I still think that it is a form of It. rudis, with rounder leaf- 

 lets and a broader and more compound panicle than is found 

 in the typical plant. 



The M. Radida y pygmceus of my Synopsis seems to be a 

 state of R. rudis in which the toothing of the leaves is very 

 much reduced in size; but the specimen from Bristol which 

 was so named is Koehleri y ptO'lUdus. R. Leightonii and my 

 variety named denticulatus are now placed under R. Radida, 

 to which species they seem to be much more closely allied 

 than to R. rudis. 



The variety Diicrophyllus mentioned by Bloxam {Ivirby's 

 Flora, 41) is an elegant state of R. rudis with remarkably 

 small leaves, which are serrated similarly to those of the 

 typical plant, but much more finely. 



The plant named R. Radida by Nees for Leighton is 

 certainly my R. rudis in the state called R. echinalus [Man. 

 ed. 1), and the R. echinatus of Lindley in the second edition 

 of his Synopsis. It is also the R. ecldnatus mentioned by 

 Borrer. The specimens from the Horticultural Society's 

 Garden of R. rudis and of R. echinatus, derived from Lind- 

 ley's authentic bushes {Herb. Borr.), are identical, and are 

 most certainly both R. rudis. 



There is a specimen in Herb. Ro7T., from Ninham in the 

 Isle of Wight, gathered by Dr Bell Salter, and named by 

 him *' probably R. Radula,'' which appears to belong to it. 



