NOTES ON BRITISH RUB: 221 
Mr. Beeby finds what he believes to be R. Winteri in Surrey. But 
with his specimen and Focke’s before me I have doubts, notwith- 
ee ie s determination of it. 
82) The plant which we call R. discolor is the R. rusticanus 
. 3g R. ulmifolius of see and as toil seems benegh nice 
N., 
rusticanus. Neither Génévier nor I have seen authentic specimens 
of R. ulmifolius Schott. R. Weiheanus has very finely dentate 
leaves, which are rather compoundly dentate towards the end, and 
sepals which are ovate and shortly cuspidate. 
The - a -W. . is the R. macrostemon Fock 
18. R. LEvcostacHys re is an older name (isa ) th 
R. rate Wy. & N., 1825, and I see no reason staal . should not 
be retained, although Nyman considers it incongruo 
14, (4838) My £. vestrrus seems to be the &. thi Mill,, 
and might possibly be separated from R. leucostachys. The felt is 
very different on its leaves, being very fine and close, but wanting 
the softness of that of R. leucostachys ys. 
34) Our R. urerironius is certainly the A. pyramidalis 
16, (485) R. montanus Wirtg. It seems most probable that 
ur R. Grabowskii is not the aie as that which grows in Silesia, 
tani 
irtg., I accept that name for it. Focke has seen an Cease 
specimen of R. Gra howshii, ase says that it is very different. Baker 
rerigned identifies my plant with R. horridicaulis Mill. 
specimens name CR. horridicaulis Mill. by Genevier, 
zit specimens in Boulay’ s “ Ronces ¥ osgiennes,’ ih 24 
G 
Géné v. published in 1864. But Bloxam’s name and demecipticts 
appeared. in ee 
therefore claim p 
<a=s 
‘3 
ne 
EP a 
a 
re, 
a 
et 
i] 
i) 
ot po 
BE 
eo 
sent by miaices and from the rather numerous Fr ench specimens of 
. Boreanus in the Herb. Génévier. It may 48 doubted if the R. 
infestus of Bloxam (‘ Brit. Rubi,’ 128) can placed here. Its 
