278 41. E. ALTH^IFOLIUS. 



sent to me by Mr Lange of CopeDhagen, is R. Balfourianus ; 

 one named R. nemorosus by the same skilful botanist, from 

 Flensburg in Slesvig, is much like some of my specimens of 

 R. corylijolms. It thus seems probable that the typical R. 

 nemorosus of Arrheniias and the R. dumetorum of Weihe are 

 really not separable from R. corylifolius (Sm.). Their var. 

 ferox is perhaps R. cUversifoUus (Lindl.) but, as already re- 

 marked when discussing that species, the figure in Rubi 

 Germanici represents a plant which is far more prickly on 

 the peduncles and petioles of its flowering shoot than any 

 R. diversifolius which I have seen ; also a slight bloom is 

 represented as existing on its stem. 



Dr Salter's it. nemo7'osus is unintelligible to me. The 

 specimen in his He7'harium is very curious. Its barren 

 stem much resembles that of R. ccesius ^ temcis, but is said 

 by him to have quinate leaves wdth the lower leaflets incum- 

 bent. Its panicle is open, exceedingly prickly above, the 

 sepals are large, long, and loosely clasp the fruit. Judging 

 from the only specimen which I have seen, I incline to refer 

 it to R. aUhceifolius. 



If led by first appearances we might think that the R. 

 cdthceifoUus is identical with the R. Mougeoti (Billot) ; but 

 that bramble has few strong and deflexed prickles on its 

 angular and furrowed stem, and its fruit-sepals are reflexed 

 and without glands or aciculi. A specimen of it is given in 

 the Fh Gcd. et Germ, exsic. ISTo. 541, and it is described by 

 Billot in Schultz, Archives, 166 (1850). 



The specimen obtained by Borrer from the authentic 

 bush in the Horticultural Society's Garden of R. dumetorum 

 (Lindl.) is certainly this species. It is probably the R. 

 dumetorum of both editions of Lindley's Synopsis, but is 

 identified with certainty as that of the second. 



It is not with satisfaction that I find it necessary to 

 adopt new names, but the impossibility of avoiding it will 



