222 NOTES ON BRITISH RUBI. 
_ armature seems so very different. But the whole question con- 
cerning the nomenclature of the plants (there are probably more 
than one) sent out by Bloxam as A. Colemani and R.° infestus 
ation. 
R. Saurert Bab. Focke considers this to be R. 
sylvatious W.& N. Génévier recognises it as distinct. I deseribed 
I find specimens from Bloxam of his R. calvatus in the Herb. 
Génév., but there is no remark made upon them. Génévier placed 
them next to R. Salteri, and perhaps considered them to be the 
same: for he says under R. “erecta in his Monograph, that that 
is not R. calvatus Blox., although it 8 of Boreau. Focke places 
calvatus Blox. and my R. . foliosus as par artially synonymous with 
his R. chlorothyrsus, on the authority of a specimen from Bloxam 
A specimen of R. chlorothayrewe now before me (‘ Rub. Select.,’ 44) is 
not R. calvatus, which is so close to R. Saltert that I quite agree 
which I cannot consider to have any ee to my R. foliosus, 
Ri calvatus, as to) ee specimens sent = cae to Génévier 
a e. I am inclined to suspect the presence of some 
mist 
e. 
18. (488) R. carpmironiws W. & N. I think that I know our 
plant ; and would refer sapadially to its very finely serrate leaflets, 
which are densely hairy rather than felted beneath, and its narrow 
and often nearly simple panicle. My specimens seem to require 
very careful study. Some of them may belong to other named 
forms. Some botanists would perhaps refer some of them to 
vulgaris W. & N.; but I know nothing of R. vulga ris as a British 
plant. The onl 
‘Rubi Selecti,’ No. 5 “Mairmaee he quotes as being the true plant in 
his ‘ Synopsis’ (p. 188) t was unknown to Génévier 
19. Soro R. xpaaaprone W.&N. I agree with Baker in 
ur plant to be ¢ correctly named. I also believe my F 
adscitus oy be that of Génévier. He quotes me without doubt. 
ere are abundance of specimens in hig herbarium, but none from 
England. 
I place here the R. heteroclitus of Bloxam (set of 1876) with 
some doubt, owing to its very nearly, if not quite, naked stem. 
Focke places the R. heteroclitus Mill. with m R. Grabowskit, 
which is R. montanus s Wirtg.; but that can arty be its re ae 
' h 
Tae nee of some suberect form; not so Bloxam’s, which are very 
Tike R. Ce ae become compl letely naked. 
