135 



in his ' Flore de Spa,' recognizes R. rosaceus to be a plant of his own 

 neighbourhood.* 



It is not a little remarkable that in displacing R. Lejeimii from our 

 Flora, I am immediately able to restore it, having found it within two 

 miles of the station of R. rosaceus, both being in the parish of Sel- 

 borne. We leave further remarks on this bramble till we come to 

 speak of it in its proper place — except that being one of the allies of 

 the one which now occupies us, it may be well to state the characters 

 by which they may be distinguished. R. rosaceus may be known from 

 R. Lejeunii, by the far greater abundance of glands in every part, by 

 the leaves being ternate instead of quiuato-pedate, by the absence of 

 tomentum from the panicle, and by the greater length of the calyx. 



The only other species with which it appears needful to draw a 

 distinctive comparison, is that one, which of all the genus bears the 

 strongest affinity with R. rosaceus, namely, R. Bellardi {TV. 8f N.), — 

 which has recently been added to our Flora by Mr. Richard Spruce, 

 who discovered it at Terrington Car, near Castle Howard, in York- 

 shire, in 1841, and of which a beautiful figure has been given in a re- 

 cent number of the 'Supplement to English Botany,' under the name 

 of R. glandulosus {Bellard), accompanied by an elaborate history of 

 the plant, from the able pen of ray friend Mr. Borrer.f Our present 

 plant is distinguished from Bellardi, by the longer and more variable 

 prickles, by the angled stem, and by the form of the leaflets, which 

 are obovate, irregularly and rather coarsely serrated in this species, 

 and ovate, regularly and finely serrated in Bellardi. 



Our Flora scarcely boasts two more elegant and beautiful plants, 

 than these two allied brambles — R. rosaceus and R. Bellardi. 



The next name which appears on the list is that of R. Lejeunii, 

 (W. & N.) — a name which 1 did not insert without some slight degree 

 of hesitation, but on further examination for these notes, my doubts 

 certainly diminish. They were however of a two-fold nature, namely, 



* Revue de la Flore, p. 238. 

 t Eng. Bot. Supp. tab. 2883. It is, I think, to be regretted, that the name of R. 

 glandulosus, which is equally applicable to so many species, and which has been so 

 much confoimded. should have been taken in ' English Botany ' instead of R. Bellar- 

 di (W^. ^ N), which is now so generally adopted for this species, and so entirely iden- 

 tified with it. The description and history of the plant here given cannot be too highly 

 praised, and the figure is excellent and beautifully executed. I cannot however avoid 

 noticing an anachronism, which the artist has taken the liberty of introducing, name- 

 ly, that of representing fruit, flower and bud all on the same panicle. The colour of 

 the parts and clothing of the panicle are almost precisely as iu R. rosaceus, {W. ^ N.) 



