132 



lish plants, whether specifically distinct or not from that from which 

 Weihe and Nees' figure was taken, have the barren shoot very much 

 less armed. 



Of that variable, very striking, and not otherwise than handsome 

 species, R. Koehleri ( IV. S; N.), the only specimens I found at Sel- 

 borne were of the form which I have given in the above list as the var. 

 fuscus of this species. No variety or so-called species has yet been 

 given by this name, in former enumerations or descriptions of British 

 Rubi, but as I designate by it a form which has been long recognized 

 and described in our Floras, it is needful that I should make some ex- 

 planation on this matter. 



Many nearly allied forms, — of which the present is one, — were 

 named and described as species in the 'Rubi Germanici," all of 

 which, succeeding observers have agreed, cannot, as species, be kept 

 distinct, and of these numerous forms, all have agreed in taking R. 

 Koehleri as the type, — though all have not agreed as to how many of 

 the recognized forms, which hold affinity with it, should be united to 

 it as varieties, or still be held distinct as species. 



One of the forms above mentioned is that found at Selborne, which 

 has led to these observations, and is that given by Leighton, in^his 

 Shropshire Flora, as the R. fusco-ater of Weihe and Nees, and very 

 distinctly distinguished as a variety of Koehleri by the same name in 

 Babington's Manual, and in the new edition of ' English Botany,' — 

 the authors of all these works supposing it to be the plant distinguish- 

 ed as the species R. fusco-ater by Weihe and Nees. That it is not 

 their fusco-ater, I think I shall be able satisfactorily to prove. As re- 

 gards the opinion contained in the above British works, that this form 

 is not specifically distinct from Koehleri, I most fully agree with them. 

 I am disposed to range as varieties of that species all the forms which 

 Weihe and Nees give as species, under the names of R. apiculatus — 

 a form found at Beeston Castle by Mr. Borrer, in 1843 ; R. fuscus — 

 that now under consideration ; and R. infestus — to which I have re- 

 ferred some specimens marked Koehleri in some herbaria, but where 

 the specimens had been collected I do not recollect. It is a matter of 

 doubt, too, whether I would not refer the last form spoken of as R. 

 Schleicheri to Koehleri as a variety. Of all the forms these authors 

 have grouped together as species allied to Koehleri, their R. fusco-ater 

 — not that of Babington, which I consider to be their fuscus — is the 

 only one, I feel convinced, that should be kept distinct. The overlap- 

 ping leaflets of the real fusco-ater [W. 8^ N.), well represented in the 



