286 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES. 
Rubus nitidus , W. and N. Royal Common, Elstead, and Mare 
Hill, Witley, Surrey, 19th September, 1890. “The typical nitidus. 
Very characteristic.” — Dr. Focke. New County record. — W. Moyle 
Rogers. 
R. . Hedge between Llandrindod and Llanyre, Radnorshire, 
22nd August, 1890. This is a bramble which seems to be generally 
distributed in Mid-Wales. The Rev. A. Ley tells me he has seen it 
in many different localities. Mr. Briggs agrees with me that it is not 
the R. ramosus of S. Devon, and it is certainly different from the 
Derbyshire bramble which Mr. Bloxam named ramosus for me. It 
does not seem very far removed from R. Dumnoniensis (judging by a 
specimen of that plant kindly sent to me by Mr. Briggs), save that 
R. Dumnoniensis is much more strongly felted on the under surface 
of the leaflets. Mr. Briggs does not, however, seem to have recognised 
any similarity, but rather suggested that the Welsh bramble might 
possibly prove to be R. leucandrus , Focke, provided the petals proved 
to be white. This they are not — but pink ; the filaments of the 
stamens white, the styles green. The margin of the leaflets in some 
of the specimens was wavy and somewhat incurved. — W. H. Purchas. 
“Not R. leucandrus, Focke, but good R. nitidus , Wh. and N. 
In this naming the Rev. W. Moyle Rogers concurs.” — E. F. Linton. 
R , ramosus , Blox. Penhower Road, near Bangor, Carnarvon, 
August, 1889; Dr. Focke says: — “It agrees exactly with the 
specimen of the original R. ramosus I received from Mr. Bloxam 
himself gathered in Warwickshire.” Mr. Briggs says: — -“Your 
R. ramosus, Blox. could not bear that name, even if it were precisely 
the Warwickshire plant, which, however, I think it is not. That 
name belongs strictly only to the Devon and Cornwall plant, of 
which alone an account has been published. The Rev. A. Bloxam 
certainly applied the name ramosus to two different brambles.” I 
sent a specimen about three years ago to Prof. Babington, and he 
said he could not name it. I believe myself it is a new one. — J. E. 
Griffith. “ Sixteen sheets were sent with this label, of which about 
half were a Koehlerian form, and the other half may have been the 
bramble to which Mr. Griffith’s note refers. How can the Club 
Referees give consentient determinations, when specimens are thus 
intermingled ? The latter of the two looks interesting : good 
specimens from one and the same bush should be supplied.” — E. F. 
Linton. 
R. affinis, W. and N. Mare Hill, Witley, Surrey; 19th Sept., 
1890; and Alum Chine, Bournemouth, S. Hants; 3rd July, 1890. 
The plant so named by Dr. Focke in £ Journ. Bot.,’ 1890, p. 101. — 
W. Moyle Rogers. 
R. Lindleianus, Lees ; Baker. Hedge, at edge of a pit, in lane 
from Knutsford towards Plumbley, Cheshire, 23rd August, 1890. 
Hedge in meadow between Ingersley Hall and Bollington, near 
Macclesfield, Cheshire, 6th September, 1890. Hedge, road side, 
near the railway station, Gateacre, South-west Lancashire, 13th 
September, 1890. The last named with a simple panicle, and new 
to Co. 59. — Charles Bailey. 
