218 NOTES ON BRITISH RUBI. 
es = sulcatus Vest. & Focke, received from A 
J does t 
have seen the true R. sulcatus from Perthshire, — the 
kindness of Dr. Buchanan White. I define it as follow 
sulcatus Vest. Stem suberect, sulcate; prickles veiaill or de- 
clinin: sri from an oblong compressed base; leaves quinate ; leaflets 
fiat, finely dentato-serrate, with scattered hairs and green n beneath ; 
terminal leaflet ovate-acuminate; basal leaflets mens a 
ase mse of flowering-shoot often gibbous at re see 
tr seal reflexed, pale; stamens exceeding the green ee not 
connivent. 
I have it from Perthshire, near Blairgowrie, gathered by the 
late Mr. A. Sturrock, of Rattray. 
8. (421) R. xrmpus W. & N. Stem suberect, pentangular or 
slightly furrowed ; prickles aasing defiexed from me oblong 
conical este onfined to the angles of the stem; lea s 5-nate; 
subcordate or entir bas ets subsessile; flowers 
solitary or subracemose ; ‘heh and sakaited hairy ; sepals patent, 
ith fl d fruit; ‘stamens reddish, exceeding the violet- 
coloured styles.” The petals are pink. 
I find a cultivated specimen from Baker la? - _ Herb. 
Généy., which was named R. nitidus by Génévier. O possess 
e from Briggs, which I named R. rosulentus fa sas tt is from 
Probus (1869). I now believe it to be R. nitidus 
so Focke and Gé r. It does not possess ee anmatore of 
entus, of which I have not seen any British s 
fs (421b) R. samunosus I have examples of the 
Thirsk aed which has borne several names ia, 
It seems to e R. hamulosus L The s sched ar 
form 0 of I R. rhammifolius. All these I sochiaenidy naa to RB. hamt- 
losus, as Baker formerly did; but I cannot learn from his recent 
paper how he now names them: Nym es not seem to know 
the plant, and with Focke places it doubtfully with R. nitidus. In 
the Herb. Généy - I find specimens of it named, manifestly erro- 
irsk ( Au 
rather doubly Sicasa Atos Aicketnad leaflet cuspi- 
date; panicle small, open, ares felted, few-flowered, with faleate 
le ee OE 
