4 
GENERIS RUBORUM SPECIEM NOVAM. | 41 
No authority = Bp pe na Craycombe Hill, 1859! Bromsgrove 
Lickey; Winw ath. 
the 51 Bi enumerated in the above list 49 have certainly 
been al in the county of Worcester. Of these, 48 are w 
omitted, either as epoues or subspecies, from the comital aogier in 
the 2nd edition of + Topographical Botany.’ The remaining sev 
are branded with i or other expressions of uncer acute, 
Among the omissions are some well-defined species which have 
been known in the county as familiar inhabitants for upwards 
of thirty years. 
t would be interesting to learn whether the records for other 
ties are equally defective. If such be the case, 1 venture to 
coun 
_ suggest to the able editors of the volume the advisability of pre- 
of 
ty 
paring for a third edition, by printing lists hae desiderata for 
each county, and circulating the lists among local botanists ne 
to supply them. The expense would net be great, as it would 
sufficient to print the specific numbers only. 
ad included in the list of omissions all the omitted plants 
recorded elsewhere occurring in Worcestershire, the number 
- would at least have been doubled. I have refrained from noting 
m 
any such ei as they are not vouched by authentic specimens 
wn possession. Some species, on the other hand, admitted 
as elahianis of the county, have scarcely established a permanent 
claim to that distinction. I mention two, 
; in the hope 
_ of stimulating further search for them. In the year ise, “he late 
Mr. Alexander Irvine, author of the ‘ Illustrated Handbook 
of British Plants,’ and then editor of the ‘ Phytologist,’ announced 
_ the discovery, in a mill-pond near Churchill railway-station, 
ay 
of both British a of Elatine (see ‘ Phytologist ’ for April, 
: 1858, vol. ii., p. 401). In‘ Topogrephien Botany,’ under the head 
). 
of Woreester, they appear < follow 
‘* Flatine hewandra. o a One locality. 
a 
that “ sent ‘the record on Irvine’s authority. Since the year 
1858 every oa wear in par locality, and there are many of them, 
s been repeatedly examined by sampekint botanists, without 
at the eae ea of either specie 
GENERIS RUBORUM SPECIEM NOVAM. 
Proponit H. F. Hancz, Ph.D. 
14 
git 
““ Rubus IpmopaTus, ELLIPTICI ?) aralioides, sp. nov.— Ram 
_ teretibus aa osis tomento brevi intermixtis glandulis supriges 
‘ vestitis aculeis brevibus e basi lata recurvis v. rectiusculis es 
stipulis petiolaribus setaceis integerrimis hirsutis, foliis pinn 
trifoliolatis petiolo communi 2-8 pollicari parce aculeato einceivede 
_ et capitato-glanduloso foliolis mollibus ovatis acuminatis crebre 
