41. R. ALTH.EIFOLIUS. 279 



probably be admitted by most botanists who do not remove 

 the necessity by greatly reducing the number of recognized 

 species. Although the present name is not actually new, it 

 is so in effect, having fallen totally out of notice and never 

 even been quoted as a synonym in Britain until used by me. 

 As the plant agrees excellently with the original descrip- 

 tion its use can hardly cause any confusion. Nevertheless 

 there is a possibility that our plant may not be exactly that 

 of Host, for few brambles are absolutely identical in distant 

 parts of Europe, and Baker on the authority of a specimen, 

 names it JR. ligerinus (Genev,). 



A form of what seems to be tbis species from N. York- 

 shire is named B. deyener (IMiill.) by M. Genevier. It has 

 no felt on the underside of its leaves but scarcely differs in 

 other respects. Other specimens from N. Yorkshire which 

 I refer confidently to B. althceifolius are named li. degeiier 

 by M. Genevier. Another is referred as a form to the R. 

 Mourjeoti noticed above, but differs from that plant in the 

 manner there stated. It is also said by him to be the R. 

 acerosus Miill., but the specimens he sent to Mr Baker as 

 R. acerosus are R. corylifolius a suhlustris. 



Habitat. — Hedges. July and August. 



Area.— I 2 3 4 5 ... 9 10 11 12. 



Localities. — i. Kew Stoke, N. So7n. — ii. Bembridge, 

 Isle of WigJit; Henfield and Steyning, IF. Suss. — iii. Gold- 

 ings and Mangrove Lane, Herts.; Pinner and Harrow, 

 Middl. (Hind !) ; Lea Bridge road, aS'. Essex (E. Forster !) — 

 iv. Eversden, Comberton, Balsars Hill and other places, 

 Camhr. — v. Henwick, Wore; between the Brick-kiln pool 

 and Wilton road, Ross, Heref. (Purchas) ; Ham Lane, Chel- 

 tenham, E. Glouc. (Notcutt). — ix. Frodsham, Chesh. — x. 

 Tliirsk, N.E. York. — xi. Durham. — xii. Douglas, 7s/e o/J/a?*. 



