296 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
SHORT NOTES. 
Yorxsure Brametes.—I send a note of some brambles collected 
in Yorkshire, in ed which Rev. W. Moyle Rogers has kindly 
examined for me. New vice-county records have a star prefixed :— 
Rubus fissus Lindl. By the canal, Medge Hall, S.W. Yorks, v.-c. 63. 
—R, plicatus W. & N. Skipworth Common, §.E. Yorks, v.-¢. 61.— 
*R. opacus Focke. Skipworth Common, v.-c. 61. ‘The first 
N. England specimens I have seen,” W. M. R. — R. Selmert 
(Lindeb.). Medge Hall, v.-c. 68. — *R. Sprengelii Weihe. Skip- 
worth Common, y.-.c. 61. — *R. pyramidalis Kalt. _Skipworth 
Common, v.-c. 61. This is not quite the same as our Irish plant, 
which is larger, and has immense panicles. — R. leucostachys 
Schleich. ad v.-c. 68. — R. podoph yitus P. J. Muell. On 
above Doncaster, v.-c. 68. ‘‘A very strong form 
Ind ieapichable from the very strong form from the Dewsbury 
alent ood,’ W. M. R.—R. casius L. Conisborough, v.-¢. 
Sacina Revrert Boiss.—This plant was again met with in Wor- 
cestershire, on the gravel walks of Cotheridge Court, on the occasion 
¢ a visit there of the Malvern Field Club on June 19th. As it has 
athered from three Worcestershire stations, at con- 
siderable distances apart, and also in Herefordshire and Pembroke- 
oat think there seems good reason to regard it as indigenous.— 
aRD EF’, Townprow. 
Sie PETR@A IN Breconsuire.—I di scovered Hutchinsta 
petrea R. Br. in very small quantity on the limestone of Craig. 
Ci e near Griskho well, on June 11 of this year. This is the 
locality for Pyr us minima Ley. It makes a new record for v.-¢. 42: 
H. IDDELSDELL. 
GEN — A curious blunder of wide acceptance has 
eibinee sais 462 ae hiewiedenci in consequence of its occurrence if 
a proof which passed through my hands a few wee a ago. In it 
thers was this statement :—‘‘ Gentiana tenella, Fries, in Act. Ha 
x. p. 346.” As I wished to — the date of the voles I referred 
page, with the date 1770; the elder Fries was not born till 1794, 
and therefore it was a manifest impossibility that the species should 
be of his negra twenty-four years before his birth. Tracing 
the error back, through Hooker’s Flora of British India me p. 109); 
and the Journal a the Linnean a (Botany), xiv. (1875) p- 
I came to this form in DC. Prod. ix. p. 98 (1845), “sees Grisebach 
monographed the Gentianacee, as ‘ Fries in act. Hafn. 10, p- 4 436, 
2, f. 6, a. 1770.” This was an altered form of the "formula 
employed by the same author in his Gen. et Sp. Gent. p. 248 (1839), 
where it runs thus: ‘Friis in act. Hafn. 10, p. 486.” I had sus 
pected the source of error before I arrived at this, a nd it may now 
confidently said that Grisebach had formerly referred to the 
place of publication, where ©. Friis Rottboll described and 
Sgaeea the species; but when he came to deal with the same plant 
