179 



thentic bush," &c., but from or by whom no mention is made. How- 

 ever this may be, or with whomsoever any mistake in the matter may 

 rest, with a glandulose specimen of R. diversifolius before me, named 

 by the original describer, and authenticated in Leighton's ' Flora,' I 

 trust to be exonerated from being the propounder of error so far, and 

 it remains to be seen if R. diversifolius and R. dumetorum be the 

 same they were when Mr. Leighton's ' Flora ' was published in 1840. 

 Having, then, disposed of two of the points excepted to by Dr. B. 

 Salter, I come to the third, on which, he says, he is " equally scep- 

 tical." Observation can alone decide here, but it must be the obser- 

 vation of years. My remarks had reference to Smith's R. corylifo- 

 lius,* to which, seeing the necessity of altering a name so prone to 

 deceive, I had at first thought to give the appellation of cmnosus, but 

 afterwards substituted sublustris as more applicable, from its usually 

 large and often specious flowers, and under this name it appears in 

 the Catalogue of Plants published by the London Botanical Society. 

 When I commenced my enquiries, I had some difficulty in procuring 

 a true specimen of R. corylifolius, [Linn.) ; but having at last received 

 numerous brambles sent me from the Botanical Society, as well as 

 from correspondents in various counties, the corylifolii soon swarmed 

 about me, " thick as leaves in Vallambrosa," proving rather too nu- 

 merous and unmanageable, so that I was actually obliged to billet 

 them off through the whole series of forms from suberectus to 

 casius. I found, at last, that there was a form very nearly allied to 

 R. cceskcs, as truly stated by the editor of the 2nd. edit, of ' English 

 Botany,' " being a much stouter plant in its general form, less humble 

 in growth, the stems being rather arched than prostrate, with stronger 

 and more uniform prickles and setae," t which technically could not 

 be referred to R. caesius, and which was very different from R. dume- 

 torum, ( W. 8f N.) This form I found to be exceedingly variable, 

 sometimes glandular, but more frequently not so, the barren stem 

 being angular, and always stouter than ccbsius, the leaves being 

 always quinate, with a white tomentosity beneath. But the most 

 puzzling point respecting it was, that in the shade its barren stems 

 were smooth and devoid of setae, though in full exposure to the sun 



* It must be noted that Weihe and Nees have no R. corylifolius in their Rub. 

 Germ., but they make the term " corylifolii " a sectional distinction for brambles 

 with their leaves gi-een on both sides. Smith's plant and E. Bot. t. 827 is referred to 

 their R. dumetorum, a. vulgaris. 



f New Edit, of Eng. Bot. under jR. coryl. p. 63. 



