137 



more in the shade, but the effect ol" the difference is to approximate it 

 more nearly to R. carpinifolius 0. ( W. Sf N.) From this, however, it 

 may be distinguished by the glands and setae on the growing shoot, 

 which is also less hairy, and by the abundant glands on the panicle, 

 which are only occasionally seen in that species, and I believe never 

 but in the variety jS. The prickles of the panicle are very similar in 

 these two species. 



The only other form of which I think it necessary to enumerate the 

 distinctive differences, is R. rosaceus, from which it may be distin- 

 guished by the quinato-pedate leaves, by the whole plant being very 

 much less glandulose, and by the short and tomentose calyx. Other 

 points of distinction were mentioned when speaking of that species. 



By the name of R. rudis I refer to a bramble which I have seen in 

 different herbaria, and labelled with many different names. It is one 

 form of a most natural group, distinguished by hispid stems and sharp 

 jagged leaves ; and it is a matter yet very undecided, how many of the 

 forms of this group should be included as one species, or how far, as 

 species, they should be kept distinct. In the absence of sufficient in- 

 formation on this point, I have chosen the name of Weihe and Nees,* 

 which I confidently conclude to be intended for the form I refer to by 

 this name in the Selborne list, and I have only here to refer to those 

 descriptions in our general Floras, which, under different names, ap- 

 ply to it. I trust, at some future time, I may have some further op- 

 portunity of seeing more of these forms, and of observing how far they 

 are or are not specifically distinct. 



The form in question I refer to the R. Radula of Leighton, R. Ra- 

 dula, var. y. Hystrix, of Babington, and to R. rudisf of Lindley (both 

 editions). To the latter two authors, under the names here given, I 

 refer for descriptions. 



The plant is one of very remarkable appearance; its jagged leaves 

 and hispid stem giving it a very peculiar aspect, but one which is cer- 

 tainly both elegant and handsome. 



The next Rubus which appears on our list is one which I believe 

 to be an uudescribed species, an opinion in which my friend Mr. Ba- 

 bington coincides with me. Having carefully examined it with this 

 gentleman, I adopt for it the name of Rubus ]3abingtonii, in acknow- 

 ledgment, not only of his successful labours in this difficult genus. 



*Rubi Gemianici, p. 91, tab. xl. 

 t It appears to me quite evident, that this is the form which Mertens and Koch 

 understand by R. rudis.— Deutsch. Fl. iii. 503 and 507. 



