150 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES. 
R. hirtus. — Augustin Ley. “This is not our fuscus. On this the 
setae are so very short and sunken as to be scarcely visible. As Focke 
says, this certainly approaches his pallidns , and they both are allied 
to thyrsiflorus , next to which he places them ; but the latter has glabrous 
carpels. I suppose that our fuscus must have some other name, as it 
seems to me to be really a form of glandulosus. This is not the fuscus 
of Genevier which seems to be our hirtus.” — C. C. Babington. 
Rubus fuscus, Vi. and N. Wood near Bishopswood, Hereford, 27th 
August, 1886. Named by Dr. Focke; who adds, “ Identical with the 
German plant.” — A ugustin Ley. “Is manifestly the same as the 
last, as Focke says, but its hair is much shorter, and its setae more 
abundant, and its sepals patent rather than reflexed, and rachis very 
wavy. At first sight it much resembles flexuosus , but the stem of that 
seems differently clothed and armed.” — C. C. Babington. 
R. mutabilis , Genev. Bodsey, near Ramsey, Hunts, 30th Sept., 
1886. — A. F ryer, “Not mutabilis. V ery near deltoideus , but without 
felt. I must place it under that name at present.” — C. C. Babington. 
“Allied to R. corylifolius , Sm. ; not R. mutabilis .” — Dr. Focke. 
R. adornatus, Mull. Gorstley quarries, Hereford, 29th July, 1886. 
Dr. Focke says of this plant, “Near R. hirtus , W. and N.” — Augustin 
Ley. “ This is not my adornatus of the Manual ed. 8 ; see the 
cordate terminal leaflet. I call it foliosus.” — C. C. Babington. “ R. 
adornatus , P. J. Mull. A very glandular form of the plant, but I know 
not how to distinguish it from the German type. Once I have received 
the same plant gathered near Twycross from Mr. Bloxam.” — Dr. 
Focke. 
R. sp. Dry heathy pasture, Sprowston, Norfolk, E., 21st August, 
1886. I have now gathered this Rubus during four seasons, having 
first noticed it in December, 1882, when the persistent leaves of its 
barren shoots attracted the attention of the Rev. W. R. Linton and 
myself. In 1884, Mr. Baker, to whom it was sent with other 
Exchange Club plants, expressed the opinion that it was “a form 
of Radula , Weihe.” A poor specimen of it went to Professor 
Babington about the same time, through the Rev. Dr. Hind, and 
came back with the remark “very nearly if not quite foliosus ” on 
the label. Knowing that the bramble was a trifoliate form, I was 
not satisfied to leave it so. During the dry summers of 1884 and 
1885, only poor specimens were produced ; but in the autumn of 
1886 I was able to send Mr. Baker a good specimen. His opinion 
was, “An interesting form of the Radula series, near R. Purchasii , 
Blox., and R. egregius , Focke.” I have now sent it, with the other 
Rubi of the Club, to Professor Babington and Dr. Focke, in the hope 
of finding out whether it is a form which is known in any part of 
England or of the Continent. Their observations are appended 
below. — E. F. Linton. Professor Babington writes, — “I should 
now separate this from foliosus , which you tell me I once placed it 
‘ very near .’ It seems rather one of the Radulce. Indeed it is 
exactly what I formerly called Lingua erroneously. That I have 
placed under Hystrix (B. R. 175). I do not remember seeing any- 
thing like it in Herb. Genev., and cannot now find anything. I 
shall be very glad to hear what Focke calls it.” Dr. Focke replied 
