340 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



with these remarks, observation in the field strongly suggests to 

 me that the intermediate character may often be explained, and 

 thus we may advance a step further in our knowledge of the 

 genus. The frequent occurrence of forms intermediate between 

 well-marked but closely allied species suggests the idea of hybridity, 

 especially as the supposed hybrids vary more than w r ell-defined 

 species ; and that in the direction towards one or other of their 



supposed parents. 



What I notice is this : that in a lane, a wood, or on a common 

 where some species of Rubus is predominant, there is to be found 

 a sprinkling of forms clearly bearing the stamp of that one, but 

 with a mingling of the features of it with those of others in its 

 neighbourhood. If this be not due to crossing, the only other 

 explanation of it seems to me to be that they all, through the 

 influence of environment, have a tendency to assume those 

 characters w T hich the most abundant one there has already 

 assumed. 



To apply these remarks to the Suberecti. Mr. Eogers points 

 out that R. fissus " becomes more like R. suberectus in damp shady 

 places," such as the latter grows in. I find in damp woods at 

 Lingfield R. suberectus. I also find near it a Rubus which 

 strikingly combines the characters of B. suberectus and B. cyclo- 

 phyllus Lindeb. M. Sudre, of Angers, has sent to the British 

 Museum a specimen of the same Rubus, and thinks it is R. sub- 

 credits x R. ccesius. He calls it R. sulcatiformis. It very much 

 resembles tall R. fissus. R. sulcatus grows at the margin of a 

 neighbouring wood ; but the leaves are much less hairy, and it 

 looks like a luxuriant large-leaved R. pticatm with drawn-out 

 internodes. Has not the existence of R. sulcatiformis obscured 

 the distinction between R. fissus and R. suberectus ? At all events, 

 that distinction cannot be made out by a painstaking comparison 

 of the specimens in the herbaria at Kew and the British Museum, 

 if they have been all rightly named ; because there are so man) 

 intermediates. Typical, i. e. selected, specimens of course differ 

 widely. R. sulcatus Vest, and R. plicatus Weihe & Nees, judging 

 in the same way from the specimens in the National Herbaria, 

 cannot be clearly discriminated from fissus and suberectus — or at 

 least have not been. This can hardly be from any other cause 

 than that the boundary between them is ill-defined in nature or 

 obscured by hybrids. 



The only other Suberecti or Subrhammfolii I have found here 

 which stand out distinctly from all other Rubi are R. nitidus 

 W. & N. and R. affinis W. & N. Others, which I find more 

 sparingly and more variable, I have been led by nature and by 

 Mr. Rogers's Handbook, and by the failure of the contributors to 

 the National Herbaria to separate them from their allies and from 

 one another, to suspect strongly are hybrids. They are R. Rogersii 

 {plicatus x affinis ?), R. opacus (nitidus x affinis ?), R. nitidus var. 

 Briggsianus (affinis x nitidus ?), R. integribasis P. J. M. (nitidus X 

 plicatus sometimes, sometimes nitidus x Balfourianus ?). I believe 

 [ could give good reasons for my suspicions. 



