199 



which he himself was the author. Still 1 considered the mistake as 

 only accidental, — a mere lapsus as it were, until, after my remarks in 

 the ' Phytologist ' were published, I observed on comparing the two 

 editions of the Synopsis, that diversifoUus had, in the second edition, 

 been transferred to another section ; and that thus, in truth, the name 

 had been applied to another plant, though without any comment to 

 shew that the author had intended or was even aware of the trans- 

 ference. In addition to this negative evidence, the authority of " Ed. 

 pr^ placed after the name in the second edition, may be looked upon 

 as so far a positive evidence that this change was made unwittingly. 



The whole of the confusion, therefore, on this subject, rests with 

 the author of the supposed new species, and it at once becomes evi- 

 dent that by the name Rubus diversifoUus [Lindl.)^ Mr. Lees, with 

 the second edition of the Synopsis, and Mr. Leighton's specimen to 

 support his opinion, refers to one plant ; whilst I, with the original 

 description in the first edition, and the authentic plant in the garden 

 of the Horticultural Society to support my view, refer to another. 

 Were the forms to which the name had been applied, species which 

 had not received previous names, it would be for decision, which is 

 the R. diversifoUus, and in that case I believe every admitted rule of 

 scientific nomenclature would have applied it, as I, as a name of 

 synonomy merely, have done in my former communication. But, as 

 each form had already been described and figured by Weihe and 

 Nees, this question becomes quite immaterial. 



One consideration, however, arising from this error is worth noti- 

 cing ; and that is, that it quite alters the force of Dr. Lindley's re- 

 flection respecting Mr. Borrer's opinion of the identity of diversifolius 

 and leucostachys, which I quoted in my former observations on thi s 

 subject (p. 106). Mr. Borrer's opinion was founded on the first 

 edition of the Synopsis and the eglandulose plant there intended, 

 while the Professor's remark was made on the supposition that Mr. 

 Borrer had actually considered the glandulose dumetorum to be only 

 a variety of R. leucostachys ! One can well imagine his surprise, 

 though the cause of the mistake thus appears to be on his own part. 

 The variety vesiitus contrasts very remarkably with the typical leu- 

 costachys, but of course in no degree to be compared with the differ- 

 ence between these two widely separate species. 



I have read with much interest and pleasure the paper of Mr. Lees, 

 to which 1 have referred above. With respect to some other points 

 in his communication, in which I hold opinions different from his — 

 having no wish for controversy, T shall not now reply to them, but 



