REPORT FOR 1 888 . 
207 
Rubus ? Biddulph Hall, Staffordshire, 23rd July, 
1888. — W. H. Painter. “I cannot name this satisfactorily. It clearly 
belongs to Babington’s ‘ Sylvatici 5 but it does not appear to be any 
clearly recognisable form.” — W. H. Purchas. “ Apparently there is 
some confusion here. Two pieces of barren stem are given which 
can hardly belong to the same plant. One with a thick coat of hair, 
but no felt ; but many sunken setae, is probably the right piece, the 
other is quite glabrous. The flowering shoot, although very hairy, is 
apparently not setose. I do not know what to say about it.” — C. C. 
Babington. 
Rubus ? Brides Stones (which are the remains of a 
kistvarn, and the Rubus was growing within the place of sepulture) 
Biddulph, Staffordshire, September, 1888. — W. H. Painter. “I 
think this is the same as that from Biddulph Hall, only less vigorous 
in growth.” — W. H. Purchas. “ Is, I think, a form of villicaulis .” — 
C. C. Babington. “ R. amplificatus, Lees, I think, which includes, 
however, several different modifications.” — Dr. Focke. 
R. Maassii, Focke. See Rep., 1887, p. 170. These were seen 
by Mr. Bailey at Rudyard reservoir, and the specimens now sent are 
intended for vouchers of the new county record. 2 1 st September, 1 888. 
— W. H. Painter. “As for as I can see this specimen does not 
differ from the Scandinavian R. Lindebergii , P. J. Muell.” — Dr. Focke. 
“ R. Maassii, I think, but rather more thorny than usual. It also goes 
to nemo rails probably.” — C. C. Babington. 
R. Borreri , Bell-Salt variety ? Wood, Beacon Hill, Monmouth, 
28th September, 1888. This plant grows in the same plantation as 
the R. virescens , G. Braun. Plants from the same plantation were sent 
by me to the Club in 1886, and named both by Prof. Babington and 
Dr. Focke, R. Sprengelii , W. The present plant is not, I think, 
identical with these. It has the partly suberect habit of R. virescens 
noted above. — A ugustin Ley. “ I can 'give no name to this form.” 
— Dr. Focke. Prof. Babington does not report. 
R. virescens , G. Braun. Woods, Beacon Hill, Monmouthshire, 
28th September, 1888. This name is given in reliance upon specimens 
sent to Dr. Focke from the same station in 1885, and which 
were named by him, “ R. virescens , G. Braun, var., glandulosa. The 
typical plant has no glandular bristles on the flower stalks.” I must 
acknowledge, however, that I am not perfectly satisfied that the plant 
now sent is identical with that submitted to Dr. Focke. The present 
plant is almost, though not completely, suberect ; the petals are small 
and whitish, the stamens whitish, the styles a full green. — A ugustin 
Ley. “ I am very glad to see the virescens , Braun, identified by 
Focke. I fancy it ought to go with Borreri to Sprengelii .” — C. C. 
Babington, “ Leaves exactly as in virescens , but the other characters 
do not agree. I can give no name.” — Dr. Focke. 
R. Miinteri , Marss. Yeldersley, South Derbyshire, 29th August, 
1888. — W. R. Linton. I do not think this Miinteri but Maassii. 
Probably both go to nemoralis , Mull., the older name. 
R. Miinteri, Marss. ‘forma valde aculeata,’ Dr. Focke. Brailsford, 
Derbyshire, September, 1888.” — W. R. Linton. “Leaves rather 
