BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB. 
5 
the glabrous carpels, this plant seems to me otherwise too hairy to 
quite agree witli G. rnodestum, Jorcl. — T. E. A. Briggs. 
Tnfoliwn repens, L., var. TownsemU. Tresco and St. Martin’s, 
Scilly, W. Cornwall. ^ — J. Eales. A plant sent from Gunwalloe 
Lizard by Mr. Cunnack, as this, is only repens with slightly purplish 
flowers. — T. E. A. Briggs. 
T. sufocatmn, L. Eocky ground, Trusham, S. Devon, May 31, 
1877. — W. Moyle Eogers. Ecmarkable from occurring in an inland 
locality, as noticed by the contributor in ‘ Journ. of Bot.’ 
“ liulms derasus” Plantation, Speke, Lancashire, September, 
23, 1876.— J. Harbord Lewis. I do not consider- this to be the 
plant so named in my ‘ Manual,’ which I now call R. adscitns, 
Genev. I think it is 11. curpinifolius. I cannot find that I have 
ever had a specimen from Mr. Harbord Lewis. The presence of a 
few setae 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 Sylcatici may sometimes have a 
few setae and aciculi. — C. C. Babington.' 
U. hirtifolins, Wirtg. ? Hedge, Derriford, Egg Buckland, S. 
Devon, July 17, 1877. Apparently identical with a bramble 
labelled Mrtif alius, Wirtg., in Mr. Baker’s collection of Continental 
Itnbi. — T. E. A. Briggs. ' I have a specimen of hirtifulius (Wirtg. 
Herb. Eub., 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 11. pyrnniidalis, Kaltenb., but I 
can hardly agree with him, with his own specimen of the latter 
(Eub. 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 apiiears to mean wliat I should describe as “ hairy only on 
the veins.” The Derriford plant seems to be veiy near to 
li. amplificatus, Lees = li. stereacanthus. Mull.; neither of which 
are, I think, noticed by Focke. I was probably wrong in identi- 
fying li. umbraticiis, MiilL, with 11. amplificatus, as Focke is 
probably correct in joining that to li. pyraviidalis, Kaltenb. My 
specimens of R. umbraticiis are from Wirtgen (H. E., ed. i. iv., 82), 
and Boulay (No. 9), both apparently authenticated by Muller. 
I need hardly add that my 11. pyramidulis is . a totally difterent 
plant, which Focke considers as near to his E. myricne, but cam 
hardly be correct in doing so. But I have not seen an}'' specimen 
of It. myiicde. — G. C. Babington. 
“ R. macrophyllus, Weihe, a. ylabratus, fide Babington.” Form 
with 3-nate leaves. Hedge, Harrietfield, Berwick, October 6, 
1877. Extending for a considerable distance along a hedge. The 
two seasons that I iiave seen this plant all the leaves on the barren 
stem have been 3 nate. The same loi.ni on the sea coast at 
Fcnham Mill, Northumberland. — Andrew Brotherston. 
R. lUo.vamii, Lees. Eoadside between Marsh Mill and 
Plympton St. Mary 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 Eev. A. Bloxam. 
