3 



I am far from sure. Focke says, " petals finally pale red in 

 pyramidalis'' He does not give the colour of the stamens. — 

 C. C, Babington. 



R. Colematn, Blox. (so Focke suggests). Household Heath, 

 Norfolk, Sept., 1888.— E. F. Linton. This can hardly be the 

 original Colemani, which is a very prickly plant, but I think it 

 is the Boreanus, Gen., to which several plants doubtfully called 

 Colemam hy me ought also to go. — C. C, Babington. 



R. carpini/olius, W. and N, In silva, Cheshire, Sept., i886. 

 — A. E. Lomax. Yes. — C. C. Babington. 



R. Maassii, Focke. Snaresbrook, Epping Forest, Essex, 

 Aug., 1888.— J. T. Powell. I believe this to be Maassii. But 

 does not it and also Miinteri (although with a sulcate stem) 

 belong to nenioralis, Miill, published in 1858 {Milnteri in 1859, 

 Maassii m 1876) } I think so. — C. C. Babington. 



R. Punhasii, Blox. Household Heath, Norfolk, Sept., 1888. 

 — E. F. Linton. R. Purchasii is the same as R. Drejeri, Jensen, 

 of Denmark. Unfortunately Bloxam's name has never been 

 published with a description and so must fall. — C. C. Babington. 



R. Sprengelii, Weihe. In silva, Cheshire, Sept., 1886. — A. E. 

 Lomax. Yes. — C. C. Babington. 



R. Bloxamii, Lees. Shirley, S. Derbyshire, Aug., 1888. — 

 W. R. Linton. Yes.— C. C. Babington. 



R. rosaceus, W. and N. Lark's Wood, Chingford, Essex, 

 Aug., 1888. -R. Paulson. Yes.— C. C. Babington. 



R. echinatus, Lindl. Near Wake Arms, Epping Forest, Aug., 

 1888.— R. Paulson. Yes.— C. C. Babington. 



R. diversifolius, Lindl. Buckden, Hunts., Sept., 1885. — 

 W. R. Linton. I think this is so. — C. C, Babington. 



R. diver si folius, Lindl. Edgware, Hiddlesex, Sept., 1885. — 

 W. R. Linton. Balfourianus apparently. It seems to be the 

 tenuiarmatus (E. Lees !) (1852). It differs in some respects from 

 Balfourianus. — C. C. Babington. 



R.flexuosus, H. and L. Polstead, Suffolk, Aug., 1888,— J. D. 

 Gray. Yes. — C. C. Babington. 



