252 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES. 
from Shirley, Derbyshire, July, 1887, and think my plant is identical. 
This is the abundant bramble of the quarry from whence I send it, 
and is a most noticeable plant, first from its strong and vigorous growth, 
large conspicuous flowers, but also for the beautiful fruit which is the 
most delicious of any save that of R. Balfouria?ius.' — J. E. Bagnall. 
Rubus gratus, Focke. Mousehold Heath, Norfolk, 29th Aug., 
1888. — E. F. Linton. “Yes.” — C. C. Babington. 
R. nemoralis , Mull. (R. carpmifolius , Bloxam, R. Afaassii, Focke). 
Leigh Dowm, W. Gloucestershire, 25th September, 1889. — J. W. 
White. “I should rather say that it is the R. Afuenteri , Focke, not 
R. Afaassii, and both go under R. nemoralis .” — C. C. Babington. 
R. macrophyllus, W. and N., Branksome Chine, Dorset, 8th 
August, 1889. Also, Hinton Admiral, S. Hants, 12th August, 1889. 
The Branksome Chine specimens are from a widely spreading bush, 
or clump of bushes, pointed out to me by Dr. Focke, as just represent- 
ing (except for the paucity of hairs on barren stem) R. ?nacrophyllus , 
as understood by him. We afterwards saw it together in other places 
in E. Dorset and S. Hants. All the plants having more or less mixed 
armature on barren stem, with decidedly setose panicles commonly 
placed by us in England under R. macrophyllus as an aggregate species, 
he would put elsewhere, chiefly under R. anglo-saxonicus , Gelert. — W. 
Moyle Rogers. “ I am glad to learn that Dr. Focke calls these the 
true plant as understood by him. He speaks of ‘ more or less mixed 
armature on the barren stem.’ — I should say that these have it — £ and 
decidedly setose panicles ’ which our plants usually have not as 
‘chiefly anglo-saxonicus ’ I do not understand.” — C. C. Babington. 
R. macrophyllus , W. and N. ; Baker. Brookside, in the neigh- 
bourhood of Lyme Regis, Dorsetshire, 10th July, 1889. New County 
record. — Charles Bailey. “ I consent.” — Dr. Focke. “ I presume 
it is so, but it differs much in appearance from the previous plant.” — 
C. C. Babington. 
R. danicus, Focke. Bemersley, Norton-in-the-Moors, N. Stafford- 
shire, 12th August, 1889. See Report, 1887, p. 173. — W. H. Painter. 
“ I think it is R. danicus, which I place under R. macrophyllus pro- 
visionally.” — C. C. Babington. 
R. macrophyllus, W. and N. ; Baker. Growing with the ordinary 
form of R. longithyrsiger, Lees, on the roadside between Cwm-y-Glo 
and Llanberis, on the north-eastern side of Llyn Padarn, Carnarvon- 
shire, 15th September, 1888 (with Mr. J. E. Griffith) — Charles 
Bailey. “Near R. Sprengelii, but the flowers are different. Perhaps 
R. nemocharis, Lefv. Mull. It is a peculiar plant. Genevier combines 
the R, nemocharis with R. Sprengelii, but he describes a plant which 
is not Sprengelii . His description agrees with your specimen. Genevier 
asserts that his Sprengelii ( nemocharis ) is identical with the Sprengelii 
of the Swedish authors, but this species does not grow in any part 
of Sweden whatever.”— Dr. Focke. “ I agree with Focke, that this is 
not proper R. Sprengelii, but then I think it is R. Borreri, published 
in 1845, an d, as I fancy, the full-grown form of R. Sprengelii ; R- 
nemocharis first appeared in ‘Pollichia’ for 1859, and seems a synonym 
of R. Borreri, not of the original R. Sprengelii .” — C. C. Babington. 
