103 



and overlapping, and by the plant not being always suberect in its 

 growth; still further from R. suberectus, by the red fruit of that spe- 

 cies, and from R.. plicatus by the absence of the cuspidate point and 

 the plicate folding of the leaflets, and by the long generally simple 

 peduncles of the leafless panicle — characters so very remarkable in 

 that species. From R. cordifolius ( W. 8f N.),* by which I under- 

 stand the R. rhamnifolius of Lindley, it is distinguished by that spe- 

 cies being arched or prostrate instead of suberect, having large hooked 

 prickles, and a long contracted tomentose panicle, in form resembling 

 that of R. leucostachys, {Sm.) Lastly, it is distinguished from R. 

 affinis {W. <^ A''.), by the round, arching, or prostrate stem and over- 

 lapping leaflets of that species, which also are generally rugose or 

 crisped, or both. 



The next species in the list is Ruhus discolor (W. & N.), which, 

 although spoken of as not so common at Selborne, is of all British 

 natives by far the commonest English species. It is hitherto most 

 familiarly recognized in this country as the R. fruticosus, this being 

 the name by which it is excellently figured in ' English Botany,' and 

 by which it is described in (I believe) all our British Floras, except 

 the first edition of Lindley 's Synopsis. The objections to retaining 

 the name oi fruticosus to this species, are, that it is perfectly doubt- 

 ful to what plant Linnaeus intended the name to be given ; as I am 

 informed by my friend Mr. Borrer, who has examined the authentic 



* By R. cordifolius {W. ^ N.) mentioned above, I observe that I designate the R. 

 rhamnifolius of Lindley. I say of Lindley, for really it is diiEcult or impossible to 

 ascertain what many of our authors intend by this name. One thing at least is very 

 evident, namely, that it has been much confused, and that not only by different indi- 

 viduals applying the name differently, but also in some cases by the same writer evi- 

 dently including more than one species. It is evident that both Smith and Bon'er, if 

 not Babington also, include the subject of the text above — R. nitidus — under the 

 name of R. rhamnifolius, and that, notwithstanding one of these authors — Sir James 

 Smith — did introduce the name of nitidus into his Flora. His description under that 

 name by no means agrees with the plant itself. 



That R. cordifolius {W. Sr N.) and R. rhamnifolius {W. ^ N.), are slightly vary- 

 ing forms of one and the same plant, is an opinion I hold very strongly in common 

 with Mr. Boner and Mr. Babington, as well as Dr. Lindley. Instead however of ta- 

 king that one of these two names for the species which these authors have chosen, I 

 have adopted, in my own herbarium, that of R. cordifolius, and for the following rea- 

 sons. As regards antiquity, I believe they both have equal claims, while on the one 

 hand cordifplius is a name which is very characteristic of the species, and is not con- 

 founded with others, and on the other, rhamnifolius is by no means characteristic, and 

 has been confusedly applied to so many forms that it ceases to convey any very defi- 

 nite idea of what may be intended. 



