NOTES ON BRITISH RUBI ' 341 



May I say here that I have included under R. nitidus R. haviu- 

 losus L. & M., as Mr, Eogers does. It is much commoner than 

 the true nitidus W. & N., and, if I am right in my determination, 

 very distinct. 



From the common level of R. fruticosus the well-defined species 

 appear to stand up like sharp ridges. In the spaces between these 

 ridges appear (as it were) the low rounded elevations of the inter- 

 mediates spreading laterally from ridge to ridge. 



I feel rather flattered to find that the Rev. E. S. Marshall 

 should have been able to learn any lesson from anything that I 

 could write, especially as I can assure him that I learned that 

 lesson long ago. But can repeated and minute examinations of 

 all the specimens of brambles at the British Museum and at Kew 

 from all parts of the British Isles, not to mention personal visits 

 to the north, south, east, west, and middle of those islands, be 

 strictly called " local " researches ? Perhaps so, as the islands are 

 comparatively small. But I have also, when it seemed desirable, 

 referred to Continental specimens, and compared them with my 

 own, especially the valuable series sent by M. Sudre to the 

 National Herbarium. 



Mr. Marshall's observation that R. ccesius is not found in the 

 Scotch counties where R. fissus occurs is very interesting, as 

 tending to show that, if fissus should not be a distinct species, it 

 is more probably a variety of suberectus than a hybrid. But 

 turning to Mr. Rogers's list of comital numbers I find that he says 

 that ccesius is probably present in every county of the British Isles. 

 He has noted R. fissus from fifty-eight, and from all those but six 

 he has noted ccesius ; while in twenty-six counties in which he has 

 not noted fissus he has not noted ccesius. This is suggestive, I 

 think, of something more than an accidental coincidence. 



I have specimens from a plant growing near R. suberectus, 

 which I took to be probably suberectus x corylifolius, and have 

 again compared them with the following from which I find them 

 indistinguishable, viz. some specimens of fissus and some of sub- 

 erectus at Kew, and M. Sudre's x sulcatifonnis* 



Mr. Marshall's observation that there is no R. affinis or R. 

 nitidus near R. Rogers ii in Scotland is noteworthy, as M. Sudre 

 has judged the Rev. W. R. Linton's specimen in the " Type Set " 

 to be a form of R. affinis W. & N., and I had before that thought 

 it was probably a hybrid of affinis with plicatus or nitidus. Mr. 



* Since writing the above I have been to Lingfield and carefully scruti- 

 nized that wonderful patch of suberect Rubus. Its stems reach a height of 

 eight feet, and are very erect ; but its numerous purple acicular thorns are 

 those oi fissus, as are its imbricate often hairy leaves. Intimately mixed with 

 it is a great deal of R. Baljourianus, and close by some coryli/olius. But I 

 could not this year find any specimen in which the appearance of crossing 

 seemed so clear as it had done on a previous occasion. Nevertheless, the purple 

 prickles of coryli/olius bear a striking resemblance to those of fissus ; and it 

 occasionally has a 7-nate leaf, one of the leading characteristics of fissus. It 

 and its close relative Bal/ourianus also flower like fissus and suberectus, earlier 

 than any other Rubi. 



