9 



panicle somewhat recalling both R. chlorothyrsos and R. 

 Questierii, the very mixed stem armature separates it 

 entirely from both these species, the long stamens and 

 large petals being also quite ditferent from those of 

 R. chlorothi/rsos. Specimens from bnshes growing in the 

 open might be easier to name. Perhaps a hybrid. I 

 see no fruit in these sheets." — W. ]\J. E.. 



R. . Lisnagade, co. Down, Xo. 2, 30,7/98. 



— H. W. Lett. "A remarkable form of R. Qiiestierii, 

 Lef V. and Muell, very near the type in most respects, but 

 conspicuously dilferent from it in the broad cylindrical- 

 corymbose ultra-axillary panicle top with many Howered 

 long-peduncled branches and loosely refiexed sepals. The 

 prickles on its very stout stem are also proportionably 

 much shorter. xSew for Ireland. Several of Mr. Lett's 

 1897 Rubi (especially his Nos. 5, 8, 13, 16 and 24) seem 

 rather near to this 1898 Xo. 2, though not identical with 

 it."— W. M. E. 



R. . Lisnagade, co. Down, No. 5, 30 7 98.^ — H. 



W. Lett. " I suppose a var. of R. inicans. Gren. and 

 Godr."— W. M. R. 



R. . Glen behind Worthy, Porlock Weir, 



Somerset S., August 3, 1898. Xo. 4. — C E. Salmon. 

 "Undoubtedly R. pi/ramidalis^ Kalt, though a verv weak 

 form of it."— W. M. E. 



R. . Lisnagade, co. Down. July 30, 1898. 



No. 7. — H. W. Lett. " A difficult form. Perhaps shade 

 grown (and so very exceptionally thin leaved), R. 

 pyramidalis, Kalt." — W. M. E. 



R. leucostachys^ Schleich. Field, Worthy, Porlock 

 Weir, Somerset, S., August 15, 1898. No. 7. — C. E. 

 Salmon. " Certainly very near to R. leucostachys, but 

 derived, I think, from the varying hybrid R. leucostachys 

 X r II Stic anil s."" — W. M. E. 



R. Gelertii^ Frider. Margery, Eeigate Hill, Surrey. 

 No. 8, August 28, 1898.— C. E. Sahiion. ^'Yes."— 



