8380 SUPPLEMENT TO NOTES ON RUBI. 
the date of publication of the name R. polyanthemos, but R. Maassii 
was Sago in 1876. I find what I believe to be R. Miinteri in 
per Areschoug says that he pulleaiied his R. polyanthemos at 
Hillingdon (Middlesex), Wimbledon (Surrey), and Plymbridge 
(Deven) and that Baker sent it to Pia from Chertsey (Surrey), 
and Briggs from several places in Devonshire. Areschoug places 
R. polyanthemos, R. insularis Aresch., and R. Lindebergii Mull. 
ado opt R. Minter as that ee a to meee from 
fi. Maa, planted both 2. Miinteri and R. Maassii close to 
fi. rhamnifolie, as is done by oe for I think that they must 
be remov = from proximity to R. macrophyllus 
We have had much difficulty with 'R cordifolis, and Areschoug 
considers it to be the R. Miinteri, but that can hardly be the case. 
Focke joins it to R. 7 hamnifolius, as we si inl accustomed to 
do. I — recently placed it under R. affinis, and that continues 
to be my opinion 
Areschou me separates a ost from his R. cordifolius under the 
name of R. velatus Aregch. s R. cordifolius is placed in close 
proximity to R. villicaulis, and io states that it has ‘ foliis subtus 
pubescentibus et pallide viridibus vel subcanescentibus,” characters 
rss ihe acpae to — it from R&. oseresondee and also 
learned from the descri th 
by the cordate-ovat lo Tole acuminate term inal leaflet, in R. word: 
which much resembles . affinis, having 
its compound pista of not the “ rosa tenet subsimplici”’ of 
sso: has not seen zi. sulcatus from Britain, but his oe 
appears to be the same as that which Dr. Buchanan White 
sent me from Perthshire, Probably it will be found i in other ts 
of the north. I hay 
1886, 217. ve described it in my ‘‘ Notes” in Journ 
dis fra hamed &. nae (us ually known as 
fi. plicatus), R. subereetus, and . fissus are ——— to be the 
_ same as the Briti tsh plants whic bear those names 
