FRENCH AND GERMAN VIEWS OF BRITISH RUBI 203 
NGLosaxonicus Geler M. Boulay (Rouy & C. Fl. Fr. 
vi. 16s) has identified Gelert’ plant with R. Schummelii Weihe 
(ap. Wimm. & Grab. Fl. Silesia). The date of the Flora of Silesia 
is 1840, so that R. apiculatus W. & N. (1825), with which Dr. Focke 
identifies R. anglosaxonicus, is of earlier date. If, however, we are 
erm. 
latus seems to differ from R. anglosaxonicus in having a roundish 
stem, leaflets of medium tiie, and obovate terminal leaflet; whereas 
in R. anglosaxonicus the stem is angular, saeco rt the leaflets large, 
and me aero leaflet a nt besa with nearly parallel 
sides ; so that, a comparison of s cimbelis, it is not unlikely 
that ea would he a taristal Giboreniegs at least between the two. 
R. Leyanus Rogers. We see no reason for altering this name. 
- Ecuinatus Lindl. Lindley’s description (Lindl. Syn. ed. 1, 
p. 94 (1829) ) i is long enough for us to repudiate Dr. Focke’s reproach 
of * nomen seminudum,’’ and most of the ska he given are ay 
though we will not claim it as a good egoreticn This is, how- 
ever, mended by Dabington. 1% pte » i, (184 BLP: 26), whose 
ipti follows : 
.—Sete numerous and nearly equal in aagth. L. taper- 
ne ne a remarkable manner, jagged.” Thus, sixteen years before 
Mueller published his R. discerptus (1859), the plant, imperfectly 
described at first, rs unmistakably, and, for those days, fully 
described Bai Babin, 
y also Goh fi. echinatus in favour of Mueller’s 
name, = aie ground that Lindley and Babington applied it to 
different A ase and that it pe lacks precision (Rouy & C. 
Fl. Fr. i, 92). This objection would be difficult to prove. Bab- 
was rescued from its long submergence in se rudis, auct. Brit., and 
peeted | in its true pesto, Dr. Focke corrected the error first ; 
n Syn. R. G. (1877) p. 822, he gives “ R. pare Lindl. Synops. 
Bt ttt coe) i rade Babingt. Brit. Rubi,” with no reference 
to fi. d J. Muell. In 1890 (Journ. Bot. 1890, 132) he 
still Berit rs E schtnectus: but adds, “ R. discerptus P. J. Muell. 
I suppose a prove to be the same plan 
Hence it appears to us that our choice should lie, not between 
Ri. echinatus Lindl. and R. discerptus P. J. Muell., but. between 
R. echinatus Lindl. and R. echinatus Bab. 
R. Newsovtpn Bab. is identified by Dr. Focke with R. insericatus 
