30. R. KOEIILERI. 209 



R. echinatus of Liiidley and of Leigliton, if determined 

 by the specimens named by Lindley, is a form of 11. KoehUri 

 a verus, having an obovate-oblong acuminate leaflet, which is 

 doubly or often rather patently serrate tlirough more than 

 its upper half. The panicle when pressed has a singular 

 appearance owing to the long simple divaricate stalks of 

 the lateral corymbs, and is very similar in look to that of 

 some forms of li. glandidosiis (Bell.). But if it is deter- 

 mined by the authentic plant in tlie Horticultural Society's 

 garden, from which there is a specimen preserved in the 

 Herb. Borrer, it is the i?. rudis of Weihe, and of Lindley's 

 /Si/nopsis, ed. 2. 



The specimen named E. j'x^^l^dus by Nees for 'Leigh ton 

 has ternate leaves with very coarsely, but often slightly 

 doubly, serrate leaflets; the lower are strongly lobed on the 

 outer edge and all are glabrous beneath, with the exception 

 of a few distantly scattered hairs on the veins. The prickles 

 and other arms of its stem are few in number. In all pro- 

 bability it was taken from a plant which grew in a shady 

 place, and Nees von Esenbeck has correctly named it, not- 

 withstanding its considerable difference from the plate in 

 Ruhi Germanici. 



There does not seem to be much cause for doubting the 

 identity of li. Koehleri and R. 2^cil^idas with the })lants so 

 named in the Rubi Germanici, although in neither case 

 does the plate exactly represent our plant. 



What I continue to call infestu^ does not quite agree 

 with the R. infestus (Weihe), which has roundish-cordate 

 terminal leaflets, much smaller prickles on the panicle, and 

 much longer stalks to its terminal flowers. My j)lant is 

 certainly the R. carpinifoUas of Leighton; although the 

 specimen so named for him by Borrer, which is now before 

 me, is not the same; nor is it the plant of English Botany 

 (which I now refer to R. Grabowskii) from which Mr Borrer 



18—3 



