335 
are  with  so  much  difficulty  avoided  even  by  careful 
collectors,  that  it  seems  necessary  for  me  to  point  out 
that  only  single  “voucher”  specimens  have  been  submitted 
to  me  with  a  view  to  the  following  notes. — W.  Moyle 
Rogers. 
R.  dumnoniensis  Bab.  Roadside  near  Sloop  Inn, 
Lindfield,  E.  Sussex,  v.c.  14,  Sept.  9,  1911. — R.  S.  Standen. 
Specimen  too  late  gathered  and  unrepresentative  for 
satisfactory  determination.  The  stem-piece  may  have 
come  from  a  somewhat  shade-grown  bush  of  R.  dumnon¬ 
iensis,  but  the  panicle  (very  weak)  rather  recalls  R. 
rhamnifoliusl — W.M.R. 
R.  Godroni  Lecoq  &  Lamotte,  var.  frobustus  (P.  J. 
Muell)]  Roadside  near  Sloop  Inn,  Lindfield,  E.  Sussex, 
v.c.  14,  Sept.  9,  1911.— R.  S.  Standen.  Not  R.  robust  us, 
as  I  understand  it.  Apparently  a  rusticanus  hybrid. — 
W.M.R. 
R.  rusticanus  Merc,  [x  pyramidalis].  Ivory  Hill, 
Winterbourne,  W.  Glos.,  v.c.  34,  Aug.  19,  1911. — Ida,  M. 
Roper.  I  agree  in  believing  that  this  is  of  hybrid  origin, 
and  that  it  has  R.  rusticanus  in  it ;  but  I  see  nothing  to 
recall  R.  pyramidalis  Kalt.  Best  as  a  form  under  my 
R.  lasioclados,  var.  angustifolius,  and  due  to  a  crossing 
between  R.  leucostachys  and  rusticanus . — W.M.R. 
R.  hypoleucus  Lefv.  &  Muell.  Staverton,  S.  Devon, 
v.c.  3,  July  12,  1911. — W.  Moyle  Rogers. 
R.  pyramidalis  Kalt.  (1)  Dart  Meet,  S.  Devon,  v.c.  3, 
Aug.  17,  1911  ;  (2)  Lower  Dunstone,  Widecombe-on-Moor, 
S.  Devon,  Aug.  24,  1911. — W.  Moyle  Rogers.  (3)  Near  Wide- 
combe,  Aug.,  1911.— Coll.  Mary  A.  Rogers.  Comm.  W. 
Moyle  Rogers. 
R.  leucostachys  Sm.,  subsp.  leucanthemus  P.  J.  Muell.? 
Hengistbury  (near  the  Barn),  S.  Hants.,  v.c.  11,  July  30, 
1906. — Coll.  H.  Fisher.  Comm.  W.  Moyle  Rogers.  These 
specimens  exactly  represent  the  British  bramble  described 
in  my  “  Hbk.  Brit.  Rub.,”  pp.  12,  51,  and  entered  in  Lond. 
Cat.,  ed.  X.,  as  No.  “487,  c.  leucanthemus  P.  J.  Muell.?,” 
where  the  “?”  implies  that,  though  I  have  seen  no 
continental  specimens  of  Mueller’s  plant,  Genevier’s 
