i alee eee ate ee 
SUSSEX RUBI 51 
R. puicarus Wh. & N. So generally distributed that the 
enumeration pe separate localities seems unnecessar On 
most of the sandy common and open moorland, but (in the Fittle- 
worth and Midhurst neighbourhoods at least) mostly represented 
y a small-leaved and subglabrous form, which in its shining stem 
and (usually) strongly falcate or hooked panicle-prickles recalls 
R. nitidus, though gre distinct from it in its roundish- 
acuminate leaflets and short stamens. In mid-Sussex plants 
Var. es G. Braun. To this variety, I think, must go 
the following :—W. Wiggenholt Common, H. (1900)! E. bi 
ington Common, H.! Border of West Dorman’s Park, 
ar. HEMISTEMON (Geney.?). E. Halland, Bentley a 
Fairhazel Brooks, F’.! By ates Station, H.! Waterdown 
Lane, G.! The pseudo-hemistemon of Focke; and probably the 
hemistemon Geney., though not that of Mueller. 
SUBRHAMNIFOLII. 
R. nitipus Wh. & N. W. Ambersham Common (between 
Graffham and Heyshott) 1901! West Chiltington Common, 4. 
Webster, 1912! Fittleworth repent and Midhurst Common, 
g length 
Growing as this sacar ces? and Midhurst plant does in the same 
localities as a broad-panicled FR. lentiginosus (which also has 
stamens of varying length), it can only be distinguished from that 
after careful examination. I am surprised not to have seen any 
Sussex &. opacus Focke, as it certainly occurs in the three con- 
tiguous counties—Hants, Surrey, and Kent. 
arrinis Wh. & N. Apparently rare. W. Fittleworth 
Common, south-west end. E. Kemp’s Wood border, Little 
rkly, R.! Somewhat resembling R. affinis, but on the whole 
I think ‘still more strongly recalling /. cariensis Genev., is a plant 
rs in dense thickets in two or three wi 
ear Midhurst ; but it was too abnormal for apeiggn — 
hus far pical erases is only known oe pth 
reland and Wales and our so ester peninsula, 
Se ading as far east a he neighbourhood of espa rset. 
R. HoLERyTHROS Focke. W. Near Chiltington Common, W.! 
