134 



and of a beautiful, delicately shaded and rather pale pink, and the 

 whole shrub of a slender and elegant growth; while the numerous red 

 glands which cover and even tint the panicle, give it almost a mossy 

 appeai'ance, very like that of some of the roses. It is not, however, I 

 apprehend, on this account, that the name of rosaceus has been given 

 to the species, but on account of the foliaceous extremities of the 

 calyx, which, when the plant is in bud, give it a somewhat urceolate 

 appearance, as in the roses ; the glands on the calyx, however, add 

 much to the effect. In the figure of Weihe and Nees* this appear- 

 ance is either somewhat exaggerated, or, what is more likely, the de- 

 gree of the foliaceous extremity varies, a circumstance not uncommon 

 with foliaceous appendages in general. In the Selborne specimen, as 

 well as that of the Channel Islands, the foliaceous portion is little 

 more than rudimentary, still, both as regards the figure and the de- 

 scription,t — which latter agrees excellently with our plants, — there is 

 amply sufficient to identify them with that of the Rubi Germanici. 

 As regards the figure in that work, it is taken at the time which most 

 favours the rose-like appearance of the plant, namely, when in bud, 

 but as none of the other species are figured in this state, it is objec- 

 tionable, as it deprives those who consult the work, of the opportunity 

 of comparing the representations under equal circumstances. 



In the herbarium of Mr, Borrer, is a specimen of this species, and 

 one which perfectly coincides in every character with my own and Mr. 

 Babington's, which was gathered by Mr. Woods near Verviers, in 

 company with M. Lejeune, and by him authenticated. This is satis- 

 factory, not only as confirming on high authority the opinion of our 

 British specimens' being R. rosaceus, but more particularly so as dis- 

 proving them to be R. Lejeunii according to the first opinion of Mr. 

 Babington, as it is not likely that Mr. Lejeune would be unacquainted 

 with the species named after himself, and the more particularly so, as 

 the circumstance of his having had to correct an error^ respecting it, 

 must have the more impressed it upon his mind. Mr. Lejeune also, 



* Rubi Germanici, tab. xxxvi. f Ibid. p. 85. 



+ Weihe and Nees (Rubi Germ. p. 79), and Meiteus and Koch (Deutsch. Fl. iii. 

 p. 605), are in error in referring R. Lejeunii [W. ^- N.) to the fruticosus of Lejeune in 

 the ' Flore de Spa,' p. 233, (not 133, as they give it) ; his fruticosus there mentioned 

 being the R. discolor of Weihe and Nees. This mistake arises from an error of Le- 

 jeune, in his ' Revue de la Flore,' at p. 100, where he himself makes the mistake which 

 those authors have copied, but which he afterwards corrects and fully explains in the 

 ' Additions et Corrections' at pp. 240-41. 



