NOTES ON BRITISH RUBI. 233 
think it probable that it is not the same as that of Focke. I do 
find plenty of R. flexuosus; and amongst them our R. Giinthert, from 
Atherstone (Bloxam), marked as certainly the R. fleauosus Mi 
clude th 
true f. Giintheri, but have the FR. fleauosus M. . 
. (464) R. saxtconus Mill. My R. humifusus is undoubtedly 
the R. sawicolus. I have the specimen (Wirtg. H. R. 151) quoted 
by Focke ; and in the Herb. Génév. I find an abundance of British 
Specimens so-named b one from ‘‘ Byland, Sept. 2nd, 1865,” 
h sphenoideus Boul., with the remark, ‘‘ extremement 
voisin du R. o s Mill.,” and indeed it is exactly lik 
authentic specimen of R. offensus now before me. I think that R. 
offensus and R. sphenoideus (1869) are the same. The date of 
R. o e it is described, I do not know. It is not 
noticed by Nyman, nor indeed is R. sphenoideus which was described 
ulay (‘ Desc. des Espéces,’ 150). 
_ 48. (465) R. roniosus Weihe. I find in the Herb. Génév. spe- 
from Hartshill Wood, which I named hh foliosus. Bloxam also sent 
it from Bunnersley Coal-field, and his name is again accepted. The 
R. foliosus of Bloxam’s ‘ Fasciculus, No. 102,’ has the cordate-based 
terminal leaflet of the typical plant. It was gathered in 1847. But 
another specimen from T'wycross 
R. adornatus and R. atro-rubens may be omitted from our list as 
Synonymous with R. foliosus. : 
focke says that he has received a specimen from Bloxam with 
ame ‘‘ R. calvatus (saltem pro parte sec. specimen a Dio 
a { 
seems rather to belong to the Radul@ than the Glandulosi, and to 
very near to R. rosaceus. Its chief difference from RK. chloro- 
thyrsus lies in its abundant minute equal aciculi and sets on the 
stem. R. chlorothyrsus is stated to be “ parsim glandulosi vel 
eglandulosi,”’ and on Focke’s specimen those organs 
6) R e. 
44, (46 . Betuarpi Weih 
m this: one long known . hirtus, the er R. pendu- 
linus Miill., which we had not previously re od. n ig 
th of these I remark below. opt R. Bellardi as the name 
our plant because R. glandulosus included very many 
forms; R. hybridus is very ambiguous. I do not see the 
