358 



nical matters save that of observation, for it would appear that a Pro- 

 fessor's opinion, even on points he has made his peculiar study, are 

 still liable to be demurred to, and even the dicta of Esenbeck, as stated 

 in the ' Flora of Shropshire,' seem now quite disregarded. I feel 

 obliged, then, to offer an explanation as to " Rubus leucostachys," 

 and my connexion with it. When, twelve years ago, I was brushing 

 among thickets of pei'plexity, Mr. Leighton most kindly forwarded to 

 me a series of duplicate specimens of Rubi that had passed under the 

 scrutinizing eye of Dr. Lindley, and been named by that eminent bo- 

 tanist after his own nomenclature in the then recently published 

 ' Synopsis of the British Flora.' Among these specimens, which I 

 cherished as authorities, was one of " Rubus leucostachys," which 

 having identified with the growing plant, and recognized it as the 

 form meant by Lindley in his Synopsis, I have ever since called by 

 that name, and so distinguished it in Dr. Steele's ' Hand-Book of 

 Field Botany.' Consequently the Rubus in question is the " leuco- 

 stachys" of Dr. Lindley and myself, and substantially also that of the 

 'Flora of Shropshire,' though it appears that Mr. Leighton himself 

 had added in his herbarium a specimen of vestitus, W. fy N., to the 

 two named by Lindley as leucostachys. His description, indeed, 

 must be taken as applying to Dr. Lindley's plant, as he expressly 

 says, " Determined by Professor Lindley." To this bramble both 

 Mr. Babington and Mr. Leighton now apply the name of nitidus, and 

 here is the question to try. 



Having all the same plant in view, it may be asked, was Dr. Lind- 

 ley right in his primary assignation of the name leucostachys to it, or 

 not? To answer tins question throws us back upon Sir J. E. Smith, 

 who first published R. leucostachys as a species, but deriving the 

 name from M. Schleicher, a Swiss botanist, who sent him a specimen so 

 labelled. I am not aware that Schleicher himself ever published a de- 

 scription of his plant, and hence Sir J. E. Smith in the ' English 

 Flora ' is the first authority for the name, and in the Smithian herba- 

 rium are now three specimens named leucostachys, which on a recent 

 examination I find are all identical with the R. vestitus of W. & N., 

 nor do 1 see any material difference between them. Neither of these, 

 however, appears to be the identical specimen of Schleicher, but a Ru- 

 bus, sent from Henfield by Mr. Borrer, is ticketed " R. leucostachys 

 of Schleicher," and this is certainly the common form of vestitus. It 

 should be observed that when Smith published his ' English Flora,' 

 the authors of 'Rubi Germanici' had not proceeded to the hairy 

 division of the brambles, as their book came out in fasciculi. They 



