RELATION OF BRITISH FORMS OF RUBI TO CONTINENTAL TYPES. 45 
prickles. It is a common Swiss bramble, and I saw it growin 
abundance this autumn in the neighbourhood of eidelhere: 
here are one or two ee bushes inside the courtyard of 
Heidelberg Castle, so that it is sure to come under the notice of 
any tourist who is at all on the 100k out for plants. Nyman places 
under this a subordinate form, R. Lindenbergii Muller, which is the 
Danish and Scandinavian discolor of Arrhenius & Fries (Summa 
8). 
15. RK. pubescens W. & N., Rubi Germ. t. 16. — This is one of 
the commonest Rubi of Surrey, and is the thyrsoideus of Brewer’s 
: Surrey Flora’ and the plant so called in Hooker’s ‘ Students’ 
Flora.’ As dealt with by Nyman it covers a wide range of forms, 
oo to which Dr. Focke has referred British specimens, 
also R. macrostemon Focke (which = BR. discolor W. & N., Rubi 
the plant i i 
e position of this present type is midway between 
ulmifolius and villicaulis, I saw it this autumn in abundance both 
any. 
villicaulis Koe oehl. ; -&N., Boke Gabe t. 17. — 
name. 1 saw the same plant in plenty this autumn, in the 
country, in the woods of the pratense He has recently 
referred to R. gratus Focke, a Surrey bramble gathered by Mr. 
Beeby, and doubtfully to R. — Weihe, a Herefordshire 
plant sent by the Rev. A. Ley. th these and also R. wmbrosus 
Weihe are classified under this on aa Nyman. The aciculate 
variety of villicaulis described by Babington eee Mull. = adscitus 
Genev. = Bakeri Blox.) is not mentioned by Nyman. 
16*. R. wmbrosus Arrhen. ex parte, and Hooker’s ‘ Students’ 
Flora’ (R. ee Blox., non W. & N.; R. ae a. 
umbrosus Bab.). — This is one of our commonest and mo y 
distributed British Poa Aa and yet I can say very little that is 
definite about its relationship to continental types. Arrhenius did 
not publish the plant as a new species, but merely took sae the 
uame from the Rubus vulgaris 8. umbrosus of Weihe & Nees, described 
Rubi Germanici, - ng and — and = leaflets only, on tab. 14. 
According to Foc , this is R. pyramidalis Kalt., shortly to be 
noticed. The ba : ‘in «Flora Danica’ (tab. 1163), cited by Fries, 
certainly does not represent 8 present plant, but what is issued 
as umbrosus in the ‘Herbarium Normale’ of Fries is, I think, 
identical with our common ‘lant I have not seen it either alive 
or in the form of dried specimens from Belgium, France, or Germany. 
I should like to class our plant as a distinct subspecies, inter- 
mediate between = 35 ie a OE ifoli: , not under villicaulis, : 
+ wv 
