73 
GERMAN SIDE-LIGHTS ON SOME BRITISH RUBI. 
By tue Rev. E. 8. Marsnarn, M.A., F.L.S. 
ME years ago I reviewed in this Journal (1900, 25-8) an 
beienieis work on brambles by Dr. E. H. rause; a pleasanter 
task now awaits me, my friend i W. 0. Focke having kindly 
forwarded a separate copy of his monograph of the Central European 
ubi, in Ascherson & Graebner’s Synopsis, vol. vi. 440-648 (1902-3). 
It need hardly be said that one finds evidence of ht study and 
wide knowledge on every page, the author’s acquaintance with this 
most perplexing genus being unrivalled. The following extracts 
U enti 
Rusvus Cam ihe ‘This is wrongly accented on the pen- 
lined UALS Fe bet Hooker sal Babington (xapas, pépor). 
R. tEMoN. The form of. R. plicatus which has been so 
a in Britain appears to be var. © glee temeen Focke (1902) 
emon Geney., non P. J. Miller. « Bina very short; 
e e 
white, ante pink.” 3 as petal 6. nace (classed, like 
R. ammobius and R. op subsp. lcro-sp. of plicatws) 
differs mainly by having: fe pag Stent leaflets shortly stalked. 
R. Roexrsu Linton. This is now said to be “apparently not 
different” from R. ammobius Focke. When I first met with es 
ing 
plant with the sfdesoription in Synopel Rub. Germ.; but this was 
not accepted as correct by Rev. W. Moyle Rogers, nor (a think) by 
Dr. Focke himself. 2 may be well to quote from recent letters of 
ogers :—‘‘ As to R. Rogersii, twice referred to opacus by Foc 
prior to 1894 (vide "eae Bot. for that year, p. 218), Focke’s note 
Britain. .. . As regards R. ammobius, if R,. Rogersii is not distinct 
from it, even as a var., it will of course be a good thing to clear 
away the latter name. Perhaps his new description of his. plant 
covers it better than his account in Syn. R. G., which I find it hard 
to fit to the very constant British form. . . . I think our plant much 
JOURNAL OF Borany.. —Vor. 48. [Marcu, 1905.] ¢ 
