REPORT FOR 1 888. 
209 
fuscous; styles purplish pink; stigmas greenish yellow; sepals 
reflexed from the flower, patent or clasping the fruit. I can now add 
to the station under Dist. IV. of ‘Flora of Plymouth,’ hedge near 
Shaugh Bridge, by the road to Bickleigh Railway Station, and field at 
Fursdon, Egg Buckland. As I have met with it in one spot across 
the Tamar, this bramble belongs to E. Cornwall as well as to S. 
Devon.” — T. R. Archer Briggs. “I do not know what may be R. 
rhenanus , Mull., but I can assert that such a plant as this does not 
grow in the Valley of the Rhine. It seems to be a decidedly 
western type.” — Dr. Focke. 
Rubus Bloxamii , Lees. Shirley, S. Derbyshire, August, 1888. 
Sent for confirmation. It is new to this district. — W. R. Linton. 
“ Bloxamii , I think.” — Dr. Focke. “ Bloxamii R — C. C. Babington. 
New County record. 
R. thyrsiflorus , W. & N. Deep well Wood, Moccas, Hereford- 
shire, 19th September, 1888. Wood, Coldborough Park, Hereford, 
25th September, 1888. — Augustin Ley. The former plant alone 
sent to Prof. Babington and Dr. Focke; who report, “ Is, I think, my 
plant, and also of Genevier.” — C. C. Babington. “ R. fuscus, W. & 
N., I believe.” — Dr. Focke. 
R. Woods, Hope Mansel, Herefordshire, 
30th July, 1888. I think these specimens exceedingly similar to a 
plant sent out through the Club in 1883, under the name of R. 
Koehleri , W., var. mutabilis , by Dr. Crespigny, and named by J. G. 
Baker, R. Bloxamii. See Rep., 1887, p. 87. It is widely spread in 
the woods of the Hereford and Gloucester border. — Augustin Ley. 
“I believe this to be thyrsiflorus .” — C. C. Babington. “ R. Loehri. 
Wirtg.” — Dr. Focke. 
R. The prevailing bramble in the lower 
part of Glen Artney, Comrie, Perth, 30th July, 1888. — J. Cosmo 
Melvill. “As this is the prevailing bramble there, it is much to be 
wished that better foliage of stem had been gathered ; without that, 
I cannot say to what form of Koehleri it belongs, probably to my 
pallidus , not that of W. & N.” — C. C. Babington. “ R. rosaceus , W. 
& N.” — Dr. Focke. 
R. debilis, Boul. Linton Wood, Herefordshire, 25th September, 
1888. — Augustin Ley. “Surely very different from Mr. Briggs’ St. 
Budeaux plant, mentioned with it in last year’s report, and referred to by 
Babington as R. debilis , Boul. (?) in his ‘Notes’ in ‘ Journ. Bot.’ 1886, 
p. 229. In the St. Budeaux plant the setae are so very few on the 
barren stem, and the prickles so scattered and unequal, that it would 
seem out of place among the Raduloe. This objection does not 
apply to the Linton plant, which, however, can hardly be made to 
agree with Babington’s description of debilis ; both setae and hairs on 
barren stem, e.g., being fiumerous, and the leaves 3-nate instead of 
5-nate pedate, and the terminal leaflet oblong-obovate, instead of 
cordate-ovate.” — W. Moyle Rogers. “W. debilis .” — C. C. Babington. 
“ Is R.fuscus. — W. & N.” — Dr. Focke. 
R. echinatus , Lindl. Berkhampstead, Herts, September, 1886. — 
W. Moyle Rogers. 
