106 



mentioned opportunity of examining. Dr. Lindley's description of 

 this plant is so characteristic, that I feel I have no occasion to de- 

 scribe it, but would only refer to his Synopsis. The point respecting 

 this form of bramble on which I feel myself called upon to speak par- 

 ticularly, is the question as to what is its true position with regard to 

 its affinity or distinctness ; and whether it should hold the rank of a 

 variety. 



On first observing it myself, which was in the Isle of Wight, in 

 1843, I not only considered it distinct from any other species I had 

 seen before, but imagined I had discovered something altogether new; 

 and from memoranda accompanying various other specimens of it 

 which I have seen in different herbaria, I find that others — no doubt 

 struck, like myself, by its very remarkable appearance — have had the 

 same impression. It was Mr. Borrer who first suggested to me the 

 opinion that it was the R. diversifolius of Lindley, and only a variety 

 of R. leucostachys. Dr. Lindley's reply to this opinion is so remark- 

 able, that I may be allowed to quote it. He observes : " Mr. Borrer 

 combines this with R. leucostachys, from which it is surely a hundred 

 times more different than leucostachys from fruticosus, the distinct- 

 ness of which he admits."* In this opinion I perfectly accord with 

 Dr. Lindley, as far as regards the mere point of difference in external 

 form, and yet, as to specific identity, I am compelled to accord with 

 the opinion of Mr. Borrer. 



The form of which we are speaking is essentially dependent on si- 

 tuation, being the result of diminished light ; for in the shady wooded 

 districts of Selbome, this vaiiety abounds, and in all the sunny expo- 

 sures we have the correct or typical leucostachys, while every grada- 

 tion may be seen in intermediate situations. The same fact I have 

 seen times innumerable in the Isle of Wight, and even the specimen 

 in Mr. Borrer's collection, from Dr. Lindley's authentic plant, was 

 already somewhat modified by the change of situation. 



With respect to the Rubus vestitus of Weihe and Nees, it is not a 

 little remarkable that they should have placed it in the glandulose 

 section of the genus, while the artist — and I have had occasion before 

 to notice the accuracy of the artist, independently of the description 

 of the authors — does not represent a single gland ; and even the au- 

 thors themselves, in describing the number and arrangement of the 

 glands on the panicles, a part of the plant on which they are apt to 

 occur occasionally, even in the species of the other sections, are com- 



* Lindley's Synopsis, 2nd edition, p. 94. 



