170 



Dr. Salter objects to my speaking of R. dunietoruni as growing 

 erect, but 1 meant relatively to the usually creeping R. caesius, and 

 had perhaps better have written assiirgent. True enough, Weihe and 

 Nees say technically, " caule procumbente ; " but these literal unac- 

 commodating definitions perpetually mislead. The stem would of 

 course arch, trail, and root, if it could ; but, imprisoned in a stout 

 hedge, it is impelled upwards, and cannot do so, and the very name, 

 dumetorum, shows the idea of the plant raised from the ground and 

 supported among bushes, which is usually the case — if a shoot es- 

 capes, it of course arches and becomes deciiiTibent. In alluding, then, 

 to the " erect dumetorum," I refer to the plant as kept from being 

 procumbent by circumstances ; and unquestionably, observation ge- 

 nerally shows it to be supported, and thus it will flower at the top of 

 the very highest hedge. Very well, then, my deduction is this, made 

 from hundreds of cases, that however convenient it is (and I admit it 

 is so) to separate dumetorum from casius, still that the former is really 

 a metamorphosis of the latter, the flowers being larger and more spe- 

 cious, while the fruit is never so fine as in caesius, and is indeed most- 

 ly abortive. In fact, between caesius, laid low in a ditch, and dume- 

 torum, elevated in excelsis, every possible variation may and does 

 occur; and I have gathered specimens so nearly midway between 

 them, that they were appropriable by either or both.* 



But there is some error, Dr. B. Salter thinks, in my deriving the R. 

 diversifolius of Dr. Lindley also from caesius ; — let us see. The old 

 proverb says that " it is a wise son that knows his own father," and in 

 Botany I shall be inclined to think in future, that it must be a wise 

 father that knows his own son ! It is easy and pleasant enough to 

 name a plant, but not so easy, perhaps, to know it again afterwards : 

 this difl^iculty, I trust, will not ever accrue to Dr. Salter, with regard 

 to his R. Babingtonii. We are at issue about the glandulosity of R. 

 diversifolius, and the Doctor wings me with an arrow from Mr. Bor- 

 rer's quiver ! But with every respect to Mr. Borrer, surely the au- 

 thority to be relied on in this case, for a correct decision, must be Dr. 

 Lindley. Now, some years ago, when I was young in the study of 

 Rubi, and with fewer thorns in my side than at present, making, I 

 confess, but little progress with Lindley's ingenious but tantalizing 



* Dr. Salter's " decided exception " to this view of the case, seems rather strange, 

 since Sir W. J. Hooker originally made the dumetorum of W. and N. the /3. cmsius of 

 his Flora; and the discriminating editor of the new edition of 'English Botany,' says 

 that " R. dumetorum, W. et N., is either a luxuriant variety of caesius, or as suggested 

 by Lindley, synonymous with R. corylifolius, Smith." 



