100 



Rubus discolor, var. thyrsoideus. On Wolmer-common. 



lencostacliys, Sm. Very common about Selborne. 



var. vestitus. Common in shady woods. 



carpinifolius, W. 8f N. At Oakhanger. 



Schleicheri, W. 8f N. On Temple-hill. 



Koehleri, vax.fuscus. Wood below Week-hill Hanger. 



rosaceus, W. 8f N. In the Lith. 



Lejeunii, JV. <5^ N. Between Temple and Wolmer. 



rudis, JV. % N. Between Alton and Selborne. 



Babingtonii. In a hedge between Week-hill Hanger and 



Oakhanger. 



caesius, L. In hedges about Selborne. 



In the following observations I do not deem it needful to describe 

 all the species and forms above enumerated, but shall refer to such 

 descriptions in our standard Floras as I have found, on examination, 

 to be most correct, pointing out any particulars in which 1 have come 

 to a different conclusion, and noticing such prominent characters and 

 habits as have appeared to me peculiarly to characterize certain forms. 

 And, as first on the list, I commence with — 



Rubus affinis (W. & N.) Weihe and Nees von Esenbeck, who first 

 described this species, enumerate several varieties, one of which is 

 common in this country ; but the specimens which I obtained at Sel- 

 borne, appear to come very near to what these authors consider the 

 typical form, certainly much more nearly so than any I had previous- 

 ly seen. I have since, in Mr. Babington's collection, seen a very si- 

 milar plant, which he had obtained at Jardine Hall, in Dumfriesshire, 

 his specimen only differing from mine in being stouter, which was 

 accounted for by its growing in a more exposed situation, — that at 

 Selborne being in a thick shade. 



Though this form of the species is rare in this country, one variety, 

 namely, the var. of Weihe and Nees, is an exceedingly common plant, 

 a specimen of which, collected by Mr. Leighton, and authenticated 

 by Nees von Esenbeck himself, I have seen in the collection of Mr. 

 Borrer. It is this which Babington describes under this name in his 

 Manual ; while Dr. Lindley's description, in the first edition of his 

 Synopsis, condensed from that of Weihe and Nees, applies both to 

 the variety now spoken of, and to the more normal form mentioned in 

 the above list. In his second edition. Dr. Lindley evidently describes 

 a wrong species under this name : the description is not very expli- 

 cit, but probably refers to R. plicatus, W. et N. 



