184 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



as a whole there seems to me nothing definite about them, except 

 some general resemblance to R. nitidus. One labelled opacus in 

 the " Set M is referred by M. Sudre to nitidus, another to integribasis, 

 doubtfully, by M. Sudre. Mr. Rogers's description of opacus applies 

 well to typical R. nitidus. Have not one or more hybrids been 

 gathered under its fold as well, while others related on one side, to 

 them have been assigned places as varieties of some other species, 

 or even as distinct species themselves ? 



There appears to me to reign even more confusion about R. 

 nitidus than about the other Suberecti. Mr. Rogers describes it 

 first as having " nearly straight or falcate prickles. " But a few 

 lines lower he says, " the typical plant, with its strongly hooked 



prickles" has bright pink flowers, though there is a white variety 

 which is R. hamulosus. This last plant I believe to be common 

 about Tunbridge Wells ; but I have never seen the pink one. In 

 one spot only have I found a plant exactly like the illustration of 

 R. nitidus in the Rubi Germanici of Weihe & Nees, and as like a 

 specimen of it at Kew from Dr. Focke. But this appears to me to 

 agree with Mr. Rogers's description of the subsp. opacus. It is a 

 very distinct plant. In the National Herbaria, however, are speci- 

 mens named opacus (FockeJ differing from that ; yet, I submit, 

 indistinguishable from others, named integribasis, Briggsianus, a 

 var. of ([(finis, sulcatus, and plicatus. 



These appear to be intermediates (hybrids, probably, I suggest) 

 between nitidus and one or other of the other Suberecti, especially R. 

 ajfinis. I have found isolated specimens of them on our common, 

 where ajfinis and plicatus are abundant, and hamulosus, I believe, is 

 to be found ; and I have been sufficiently puzzled by them. 



R. integribasis P. J. Muell. is another of the indistinct group 

 of plants between affinis and nitidus or the other Suberecti. But I 

 gather that there are also other sources of error in connection with 

 it. One is a plant I have found which suggests to me strongly a 

 cross between plicatus (or hamulosus) and Balfourianus. Another 

 is a weakly plant I once found and thought to be R. integribasis, an 

 opinion which was confirmed by finding a specimen like it so 

 named in the National Herbarium. It is, however, different from 

 any other specimens of integribasis, and more recent consideration 

 has induced me to think it R. rusticanus x Sprengelii. One specimen 

 in the M Type Set" at Kew, named integribasis,\s held by M. Sudre 

 to be Questieri. In every vice-county in which integribasis is said 

 to be found (in the Appendix to Mr. Rogers's Handbook) nitidus is 

 also found, and also plicatus ; and Balfourianus in all but one. In 

 some cases probably R. plicatus x Sprengelii has been taken for 

 intfffribasis ; and also a hybrid between one of the Suberecti and one 

 of the rhamnifolii. It is worthy of note, I think, that there is a 

 great deal of resemblance between R. nitidus and R. SprengtUi, 

 which comes out very strongly in the description of the two in Mr. 

 Rogers's Handbook. 



If my observations are correct, it follows that R. integribasis 

 figures in the national collections under the names of six other 

 Suberecti also. This, I should gather from what I have found in 



