BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB. 
5 
the glabrous carpels, this plant seems to me otherwise too hairy to 
quite agree with G, modrstum , Jorcl. — T. B. A, Briggs. 
Trifoliw)!. repens, L., var. Townsendi. Tresco and Bt. Martin’s, 
Scilly, W. Cornwall.- — J. Bales. A plant sent from Gunwalloe 
Lizard by Mr. Cimnack, as this, is only repens with slightly purplish 
flowers. — T. B. A. Briggs. 
T. sufocatwii, L. Bocky ground, Trusham, S. Devon, May 31, 
1877. — W. Moyle Bogers. Bcmarkable from occurring in an inland 
locality, as noticed by the contributor in ‘ Journ. of Bot.’ 
“ lUdms derecstis.” Plantation, Speke, Lancashire, September, 
23, 187G. — J. Harbord Lewis. I do not consider- this to be the 
plant so named ui my ‘ Manual,’ which I now call B. adscitus, 
Genev. I think it is U.. ceirpinifolius. I cannot And that I have 
ever had a specimen from Mr. Harbord Lewis. The presence of a 
few set® and aciculi renders this determination a little doubtful, 
but probably we may easily lay too much stress upon that character. 
I think it very likely that all my Sijlvatici may sometimes have a 
few setfB and aciculi. — C. C. Babington. 
B. hirtifolins, Wirtg. ? Hedge, Derriford, Egg Buckland, S. 
Devon, July 17, 1877. Apparently identical with a bramble 
labelled hirtif alius, Wirtg., in Mr. Baker’s collection of Continental 
Bubi. — T. B. A. Briggs. ' I have a specimen of hirtifolim (Wirtg. 
Herb. Bub., ed. 1, No. 173), which is very much like this. But 
Focke thinks that published specimen doubtful. He thinks that it 
may possibly be a form of the B. pi/ramidalis, Kaltenb., but I 
can hardly agree ivitli him, with his own sj)ecimen of the latter 
(Bub. Select., 65) before me. That has, as he describes it, a truly 
pyramidal panicle with patent branches ; not like the Derriford 
plant and the above No. 173. By “folia subtus subvelutina” 
Focke app>ears to mean what I should describe as “ hairy only on 
the veins.” The Derriford plant seems to be very near to 
B. aniplificatus, Lees = B. ste reacanthus, Midi. ; neither of which 
are, I think, noticed by Focke. I was probably wrong in identi- 
fying B. umbraticus, Mllll., with B. aniplificatus, as Focke is 
probably correct in joining that to B. pijramidalis, Kaltenb. My 
specimens of B. umbraticus are from Wirtgen (H. B., ed. i. iv., 82), 
and Boiilay (No. 9), both apparently authenticated by Muller. 
I need hardly add that my B. ])yramidalis is . a totally diflerent 
plant, which Focke considers as near to his B. vnjricne, but can 
hardly be CwiTcct in doing so. But I have not seen any specimen 
of B. mj/riccie. — C. C. Babington. 
“A. macrophyllus, Weihe, a. ylahratus, fide Babington.” Form 
with 3-nate loaves. Hedge, Harrietfleld, Berwick, October G, 
1877. Extending for a considerable distance along a hedge. The 
two seasons that I have seen this plant all the leaves on the barren 
stem have been 3 nato. The same foim on the sea coast at 
TiAnham Mill, Northumberland. — Andrew Brotherston. 
B. Bloxaniii, Lees. Boadside between Marsh Mill and 
Plympton St. klary Church, S. Devon. A plant with quite a 
restricted distribution, yet abundant in some spots. A specimen 
from Crabtree was labelled Bloxamii by the late Bov. A. Bloxam. 
