202 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
his description in Syn. R. G., nor are they identical with one 
another. 
R. micans Gren. & Godr. This naming, due to Dr. Focke, 
must now, as he admits, be withdrawn, and our plant bear the 
g sp. - 218), adding, “ The 
naine leucostachys, or ‘white spike,’ shows that the author did not 
include the ordinary pink flowering form.” But, as Mr. Mars 
has pointed out, the name fits remarkably well the colouring of the 
spike in bud; and Smith cannot have intended the name for the 
owers, which he describes as “white or pale red.” i 
. Focke now changes his ground, saying that ‘ R. leucostachys 
has hitherto been an aggregate conception . . . has not been applied 
to a definitely circumscribed species; so that it cannot replace the 
name of Hi. vestitus.” If every name about the interpretation of 
there are few of bygone days that would survive! But, if there is 
one bramble more than another that has always been clearly 
recognized by British botanists, it is R. leucostachys, in spite of 
the various forms, which, before they were detected as hybrids, were 
often a puzzle to our predecessors in British ba . We venture 
to think that better reason should be shown than has yet been 
advanced why the law of priority should be broken in this particular 
Instanee, 
R. eymvosracuys Genev., “treated as a var. of R. leucostachys 
in Handb. Br. Rubi, is now considered by Dr. Focke to be a good 
species ” (p. 76). M. Sudre alleges (Observ. sur Set Brit. Rubi, 
1904) that Genevier has confounded under this name at least four 
distinct forms, and that the plant we issued (Set, No. 14) as 
bear that name. Perhaps on this account M. Boulay has omitted 
all mention of 2. gymnostachys Genev. in Rouy & Camus, Fl. Fr. 
_ It would be interesting to know whether the plant Dr. Focke (who 
_ helped us to name our British plant) has selected for the type is 
a Genevier’s four forms, or, like ours, distinct 
