REPORT FOR 1 889. 
247 
Bailey. “ R. carpinifolius , W. and N. ? The leaf of the barren stem is 
more roundish than is usually the case in R. carpinifolius .” — Dr. W. 
O. Focke. “ I incline to think that this is affinis although Dr. Focke 
says carpinifolius. I do not understand his carpinifolius ; it seems 
clearly not to be ours.” — C. C. Babington. 
Rubies affinis , Bab. non W. and N. ; Baker. Bush on the hill below 
the Rutherford obelisk, Gatehouse of Fleet, Kirkcudbrightshire, 
19th September, 1889. New County record. — Charles Bailey. 
“This may be R. Bakeri , i.e. hamulosus .”■ — C. C. Babington. 
R. affinis , Bab., non W. and N. Variety near R. Bakeri , F. A. Lees ; 
Baker. Road from Taxal to Whaley Bridge, Derbyshire, 27th July, 
1889. — Charles Bailey. u R. hamulosus = Bakeri, I suppose.”- — 
C. C. Babington. 
R. affinis , Bab. non W. & N. ; Baker. Hedge near Kirkcudbright 
on the Auchencairn road, Kirkcudbrightshire, 19th September, 1889. — 
Charles Bailey. “ I think it is our affinis .” C. C. Babington. 
“ R. rhamnifolius , Auct. I find no real difference between this and 
the R. rhamnifolius from Newton Stewart, 21/9/89.” — Dr. W. O. 
Focke. 
R. Lindleianus , Lees. Leigh Down, N. Somerset, 18th September, 
1889. — J. W. White. “A poor specimen, but probably Lindleianus , 
although differing very much in appearance from the luxuriant 
specimens.” — C. C. Babington. 
R. rhamnifolius , W. and N. R. cordifolius , Rub. Germ. Wych, 
W. Gloucestershire, 10th September, 1889. This form is frequent in 
the Bristol district. It seems to me only a very robust state of 
R. rhamnifolius W. & N. differing but slightly from the ordinary plant 
in its cordate leaflets with fine serration and pale undersurface, and 
less dense panicle. Is it what Prof. Babington speaks of as “ our old 
cordifolius ,” and the cordifolius of ‘Rubi Germanici ? ’ If not, what is 
that plant ? And, in any case, what is the plant bearing this name 
that is placed under affinis in the last Lond. Cat. ? Prof. Babington 
says (‘J. of B. ; July, 1886) that affinis is “the R. cordifolius of Baker.” 
But I have specimens of both affinis and cordifolius named at the 
sar e time by Mr. Baker. How then can the two be one ? I shall 
be thankful for enlightenment on this matter. — J. W. White. “ The 
leaves are bad. Not cordifolius, W. and N. As far as I can judge con- 
cerning it, the terminal leaflet seems to lie between those of the 
extreme rhamnifolius and cordifolius, therefore best call it rhamnifolius. 
The affinis issued by Leighton (No. 4) is very like this, and ought 
probably to go to rhamnifolius .” — C. C. Babington. 
R. rhamnifolius, W. and N. ; Baker. Roadside, near Newton 
Stewart, on the Wigtonshire side of the River Cree, 2 1st September, 
1889. New County record. Name assented to by Dr. Focke. — 
Charles Bailey. “ If, as Focke says, this and the Kirkcudbright 
plant are the same, it is clear that our idea of rhamnifolius differs 
greatly from his.” — C. C. Babington. 
R. rhamnifolius, W. and N. ; Baker. Roadside, Leigh Woods, 
opposite Clifton, N. Somerset, 15th October, 1888. — Charles Bailey. 
“Is not this R. ramosus, Bloxam, in one of its forms?” — C. C. Babington. 
