200 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
the varietal name? If it is not Mueller’s plant, it is at any rate 
the plant of Rogers, and possibly, as Dr. Focke says, of Genevier 
(but see Rouy & Camus, Fl. Fr. vi. 39). 
: » “Ce n’est pas la plante que 
Genevier appelait R. nitidus et A laquelle M. Focke a donné le nom 
of us in Journ. Bot. 1895, 47. ere is a specimen in Batotheca 
Europea (fase. ii. No. 52), labelled R. nitidus W. & N. subsp. 
holerythros Focke (R. nitidus Geney.), which we saw at a glance was 
n hi i 
recalls R. Briggsianus Roge 
gers, which, occurring in Guernsey and 
Jersey, is not unlikely to b 
rs 
e found in North-west France, whence 
R. mericatus Hort. M. Sudre has issued in the Batotheca 
Europea (fase. ii. No. 62), this species from Vendée, very poorly 
represented, but still apparently the right plant. 
ommenting on the difference between 
distinct species. 
R. eryrurinus Geney., identified with R. argenteus W. & N. b 
Dr. Focke. As we owed the name to Dr. Focke, by whose request 
the late Mr. Archer Briggs wrote his account of it (Journ. Bot, 
1 UV, 204) as a British plant, we must not complain of his with- 
form which 
Rubi, No. 58), an h 
fi. erythrinus (Set of Brit. Rubi, Nos. 6, exclu ing specimens from 
Baillie Gate, and 108). The French vie i i 
being R. erythrinus Genev., and equally adverse to Dr. Focke’s 
identification of it with R. argenteus; for M. Boulay places 
mere variety of HR. silvaticus W. & N. We therefore give up 
_ A, erythrinus Genev. as a British plant. 
DuREscens W. R. Linton. M. Sudre, having seen the sheet 
(No. 57) in one Set of Brit. Rubi, ventures the following con- 
jecture :—* Plante peu fertile, tenant & la fois du R. Questieri 
‘Lef. & M. par ses turions glabres et d . 
son inflorescence plus lache et plus poilue. Vraisemblablement 
