HYBRIDS AMONG BRITISH PHANEROGAMS 271 



none have been produced in this genus, though often attempted- 

 One was formerly reported between S. anglica L. and S. quinque- 

 vulnera L., but withdrawn in the last London Catalogue. I cannot 

 say whether it was right. Rouy & Foucaud do not give it, but they 

 give (FL France, iii. 107) S. inflata X ynaritima as the solitary case 

 in the genus ; this hybrid I have formerly published from near 

 Cheddar, and Major A. H. Wolley-Dod from Woolwich Arsenal, and 

 both plants seem to me rightly diagnosed. There are several 

 Dianthus hybrids reported in the Flore de France. Lychnis alba X 

 dioica has been occasionally met with. Rouy & Foucaud report its 

 occurrence here and there in France with the parents ; and Dr. 

 Focke says it has been found in many parts of Germany. Mr. 

 Druce tells me that it is fertile. 



Hypericace.c — Hypericum liumifusum x linarifolium. Miss 



Dawber sent a plant to the Watson Botanical Exchange Club in 

 1888-89 from St. Catheinne's, Jersey, labelled H. linarifolium Vahl, 

 which Mr. Bennett said, in the Report, was nearer H. hwnifusum L., 

 questioning whether it was not the plant Syme referred to (Engl. 

 Bot. vol. ii. p. 156, 1864) as strangely intermediate between these 

 two species, some specimens approaching to the one parent and 

 some to the other. My specimens of the gathering were II. linari- 

 folium, but there seems good reason to believe that Syme, and 

 perhaps Miss Dawber, had lit upon the hybrid. 



Leguminos^e. — Medicago silvestris Fr. Nyman supposes this to 

 have sprung from M. sativa L. and M. fdcata Fr., and to have 

 become fixed nearer the latter. Rouy & Foucaud (FL France, t. v. 

 pp. 12, 13) recognize the hybrid, and call it pseudo-falcata Rouy & F,, 

 but place M. silvestris as a variety under M. falcata Fr. 



Rosacea. — Rubus. The hybrids which have been observed in 

 this genus are fairly numerous, even in this country, where no great 

 amount of attention has been paid them. They were not placed 

 in the London Catalogue (ed. 9), though several had been ascertained 

 by the Revs. W. Moyle Rogers, A. Ley, W. R. Linton, R. P. Murray, 

 and myself previously to its issue. Those now given are a limited 

 list which the Rev. W. M. Rogers has kindly supplied, and which 

 he considers may be relied on, having seen most of them in the 

 living state, and had them all in his herbarium : — R. holerythros F. 

 X Sprengelii Weihe; Surrey. — R. Lindleianus Lees X radula Weihe; 

 Derbyshire (I add Dorset). — R. rusticanus Merc. X R. affinis 

 Wh. & N. var. Briggsianus Rogers ; several localities in Devon 

 and Cornwall. — R. rusticanus x corylifolius Sm. ; Dorset ; pro- 

 bably frequent. — JR. rusticanus x leucostachys Sm. ; many localities 

 in Dorset, Hants, Glamorgan, Hereford, Worcester, Derby (I add 



Suffolk, E.). — R. rusticanus x holerythros; Surrey. — R. rusticanus 

 X arge?iteusW. & N.; Somerset. — R. msticanus x mutabilis Genev. ; 

 Surrey. — R. rusticanus x Lindleianus ; Surrey. — R. leucostachys 

 X foliostu W. & N. ; Kent. — R. leucostachys x imbricatus Hort, ; 



Surrey. — R. leucostachys x pulcherrimus Neum. ; Surrey. — IL 

 leucostachys X Sprengelii ; Derby. — jR. leucostachys x Marshalli 



F. & R. ; Surrey. — B. mucronatus x infecundus Rogers; Here- 



