168 

 " /v'2/<:/z/f^. monoica." 



"5/y/, 5." 



Riibus Chamaemonis L. is not scapose or scapiferous, as Dali- 

 barda is ; the herbaceous flowering stem has often three or four 

 leaves. Someone may claim that Necker's idea of scaposiis 

 differed from the accepted one of the present day ; but this claim 

 does not hold in this case, for Necker characterized Riibiis as 

 " Folia coviposita, caulescentes proles." He evidently included 

 in it two well-known European species with herbaceous stems 

 and compound leaves, which were described in the first edition 

 of the Species Plantarum, via., Riibiis saxatilis and R. arcticus. Of 

 these the latter at least is one-flowered and of the same habit as 

 R. Cliamae-moriis. 



Rubus Chamaemonis is never monoecious, but dioecious by 

 the abortion of either the gynoecium or the androecium ; while 

 Dalibarda is monoecious as Necker described it. For empha- 

 sis, he also added after the description : 



" Obs. Marcs & fcininae, in iisdem individids ^ 



Necker gave iox Dalibai'da : " Styli, 5," " Seviina, 5, jmda." 

 In Dalibarda the pistils are usually five and hence the drupelets 

 five. The latter are rather dry and perhaps that is the reason 

 why he gave the character: " Seunna, 5, nuda" ; while in the 

 corresponding places in the diagnoses of Rzibtis and Bossekia, he 

 gave: " Bacca, mittoribtis forinata" (berry formed by smaller 

 ones) and " Bacca, minoribus i-spermis, constans." Ricbus Cha- 

 maemonis has many pistils and many drupelets forming a large 

 so-called htxxy. Necker could never have intended to include it 

 in his diagnosis of Dalibarda. 



The preceding discussion has been founded upon the supposi- 

 tion that Necker referred to the first edition of Linnaeus' Spe- 

 cies Plantarum, in his diagnoses of Ritbiis, Dalibarda and Bos- 

 sekia. This, however, can not have been the case ; for under 

 Dalibarda also, he gave : 



''Folia simplicia. Quid. Rub. Linn." 



In the first edition of Species Plantarum, Linnaeus recognized 

 Dalibarda as a valid genus, distinct from Ridms. In the second, 

 he reduced Dalibarda and changes D. repens L. to Rubus Dali- 



