101 



Not to attempt any elaborate settling of synonyraes in this notice, 

 I may however add that the variety (7. TV. Sf N.) above spoken of, is 

 evidently the R. corylifolius of Borrer, and also of Arrhenius, whose 

 description under this name differs from that of British authors, in 

 describing the barren shoots as smooth instead of hairy. A not very 

 distinct subvariety of this same R. affinis 7. {W. 8f N.) is the second 

 form of Leighton's R. rhamnifolius, as 1 have seen by authentic spe- 

 cimens in the herbarium of Mr. Babington. His R. affinis and " R. 

 rhamnifolius, second /ortn,^ therefore are only slightly varying forms 

 of the same plants. 



Presuming that the more common variety may be tolerably familiar, 

 and for a description of which I have referred to the Manual of Ba- 

 bington, I only add that the more normal form, mentioned in the Sel- 

 borne list, differs from the common English form (7. fV. et N.) in the 

 leaves being more flexible, less cuspidate and waved,* and the lower 

 pair not overlapping. 



Ruhus nitidus (W. & N.), would appear, from the very numerous 

 specimens 1 have seen in different herbaria, labelled with various 

 names, to be both an exceedingly common species, and one very im- 

 perfectly understood, or rather very generally misunderstood, being 

 most commonly distributed under R. suberectus, R. plicatus and R. 

 rhamnifolius. The description in the first edition of Lindley's Synop- 

 sis is very characteristic ; yet it is very remarkable that Professor 

 Lindley himself observes in that edition, that it is only introduced on 

 the authority of Smith. It is yet further remarkable, that though Sir 

 James Smith had certainly seen the plant, as 1 have been able to ve- 

 rify from Mr. Borrer's collection, his description is evidently drawn 

 up from another species — R. cordifolius {W. 8f N.) Notwithstanding 

 its extreme frequency, and that attention was so early directed to it, 

 it yet neither appears in Hooker's Flora, Babington's nor Macreight's 

 Manuals, nor Leighton's Shropshire Flora ; and Professor Lindley, 

 who had distinguished it in his first edition, in his second confounds 

 it with R. plicatus, under the misnomer of R. affinis above mentioned. 



As the misunderstanding of this species appears to be so universal, 

 I shall make some rather particular observations on its habits, as well 

 as mention those points by which it may readily be distinguished 

 from the species with which it is apt to be confounded. 



* Mr. Babington does not describe the leaves as waved, which however I find in- 

 variably to be the case in the variety which he describes, — that with the lower leaves 

 overlapping. 



