250 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES. 
to give this name, on account of the exact similarity of the present 
plant to one picked in the same district of Herefordshire, upon which 
Mr. Archer Briggs writes to me : “This accords very fairly with the 
Rubi Germanici plate of R. macroacanthus .” He adds that it “comes 
near R. pubescens — Augustin Ley. “Focke tells us that the 
R. macroacanthus of Rub. Germ, was only a single bush, which was 
again found by A. Braun. It had a very broad and short-stalked terminal 
leaflet • this has a very long stalk. This is very like the R. robustus of 
Mull, (which Focke places doubtfully to R. pubescens) and my thyrsoideus , 
therefore probably a form of R. pubescens.” — C. C. Babington. 
Rubus rusticanus , Merc. var. argenteus ? Caplar Hill, Herefordshire, 
10th July, 1889. A plant from the same spot was referred to the 
above variety of R. rusticanus for me by Professor Babington about 
the year 1873. I have not now got the original specimens to refer to, 
and do not therefore know whether the plant now sent is identical 
with them. — Augustin Ley. “ Argenteus of whom? It is a very 
variously-used name. I do not think it is the plant of Rub. Germ., 
but agrees very well with the R. thyrsanthus (Focke) Rub. Sel. 
No. 35 (originally issued as R. candicans ), but not so well with the 
Swedish specimens, or with No. 12 of the ‘Rubi Selecti.’ It is 
apparently a new form of the aggregate species R. thyrsoideus , not our 
R. thyrsoideus , which is R. pubescens .” — C. C. Babington. 
R. ulmifolius , Schott, var. pubescens , Bab.; Baker. Foot of walls 
on south side of Carisbrook Castle, Isle of Wight, 6th October, 1888. 
Charles Bailey. “I agree” — Dr. W T . O. Focke. “From the 
ticket I presume that Baker means pubigerus of the Man. Ed. 8. I 
do not now consider that to be a variety worth distinction from 
R. rusticanus. I hold to that name in place of R. ulmifolius for 
various reasons too many to detail here.” — C. C. Babington. 
R. leucostachys x rusticanus. Polstead, Suffolk, 12th September, 
1889. This was about as clear a case for a hybrid as one could well 
have. There were two very large bushes near to one another which 
had been covered with blossom, and were sending out fresh flowering 
shoots from the base of the panicle. The summer-flowering panicles 
were all dead : not a single fruit had formed. The characters 
were intermediate between those of the supposed parents, both of 
which grew near. I have sent specimens to Dr. Focke, but up to 
date have not received his reply. There is, however, no doubt in my 
mind that the name given is correct. — E. F. Linton. “Of the two 1 
specimens sent one is apparently the lower side branch of the other. ! 
The long pyramidal panicle strikes one ; I do not think there is such 
a foriu in either of the supposed parents. It approaches very near to 1 
R. bifrons (R. speciosus , Mull.), as shown in Schultz, Herb. Normale, : 
sp. 35 °? quoted as authentic by Focke, but his own specimens are less 
like it, nor is it like what I have called R. bifrons. It is a very 
remarkable plant.” — C. C. Babington. 
R. leucostachys , Sm. (R. vestitus , W. and N.) A variation towards j 
rusticanus. Leigh Down, N. Somerset, 15th September, 1889. — i 
J. W. White. “ A very poor specimen, but it looks like R . 1 
leucostachys .” — C. C. Babington. 
