REPORT FOR 1890. 
285 
1,100 feet. — W. H. Painter. These fine specimens of R. fissus 
remove any doubt affecting Mr. Painter’s record in 1888. See Report 
for 1888, p. 205. — E. F. Linton. 
Rubus fissus , Lindl., Baker, = suberectus , var. Roadside from Strath- 
peffer to Loch Kinellan, East Rossshire, 28th July, 1890. Not 
recorded for Co. 106 in ‘Top. Bot.’ p. 137. — Charles Bailey. 
“ R. plicalus, Wh. and N.”— Dr. W. O. Focke. 
R. plicatus, W. and N. ; Baker, var. Hedgebank in lane near 
Ingersley Hall, near Macclesfield, Cheshire, 6th September, 1890. — 
Charles Bailey. “ Not plicatus , Wh. and N., but R. nitidus , Wh. 
and N.” — W. Moyle Rogers and E. F. Linton. 
R. plicatus , Wh. and N. Bradley, S. Derbyshire, 26th August, 
1889. Not hitherto recorded with any certainty for District III. of 
Derbyshire. — Wm. R. Linton. 
R. sulcatus, Vest. Dollar Wood, near Sturminster Marshall, 
Dorset, 14th July, 1890. — W. Moyle Rogers. 
R. . Shirley, S. Derbyshire, 23rd October, 1890. Belongs 
to the suberect section, and may be a form of R. plicatus. Its late 
flowering and fruiting are noticeable. — Wm. R. Linton. Looks like 
R. opacus , Focke. — E. F. Linton. (( R. opacus , Focke, var.” — Dr. W. 
O. Focke. 
R. ramosus , Blox.? Shirley, S. Derbyshire, 25th September, 1890. 
Mercaston Stoop, S. Derbyshire, 29th September, 1890. — Wm. R. 
Linton. I think this is a form near R. nitidus , Wh. and N., which 
may perhaps be separable as a variety or even species. The Rev. W. 
Moyle Rogers says it is not the Devon R. ramosus ; and after com- 
parison with the Warwickshire ramosus , we see it is not that. On the 
Shirley specimens Professor Babington writes : “I think R. hamulosus 
(L. and M.), except for the ‘ pale pink petals.’ Focke says that 
R. hamulosus has white ones. L. and M. say reddish.” — E. F. 
Linton. 
R. . Brailsford, S. Derbyshire, 23rd September, 1889. 
Hulland Moss, S. Derbyshire, September, 1889, and 24th September, 
1890. — Wm. R. Linton. I cannot get these named certainly. They 
seem to me to be slightly differing forms of the two which form the 
subject of the preceding note, and probably identical with the “ R. 
septorum ” of Bradley Wood (see pp. 175 and 206 of this Report), a 
name which Dr. Focke has, practically withdrawn. The bramble is 
one which, after a little further study, would probably prove worthy 
of being described. — E. F. Linton. 
R. . The Holt, Edlaston, S. Derbyshire, Sept., 1890.— 
Wm. R. Linton. “ I have entered ‘R. nitidus , f.’ on the labels, this 
having been my view of the plant last September, and Dr. Focke 
having confirmed this opinion (saying ‘near R. nitidus Wh. and N.’) 
in the later autumn. I have now obtained Prof Babington’s opinion, 
which I append forthwith.” — E. F. Linton. “Seems to be the true 
R. nitidus of R.G., t. 4, and Focke, p. 123. I do not understand his 
distinction between falcate and hooked. I am inclined to believe that 
our nitidus is the integribasis (Mull.), and that this is nitidus (W. and 
and N. )” — C. C. Babington. 
