REPORT FOR 1893. 
407 
or R. thyrsanthus , Focke, which Dr. Focke says are the two principal 
forms of thyrsoideus. This is the plant recorded in my ‘ Con- 
tribution to the Flora of Derbyshire ’ (p. 44) under this name. I 
also met with it in an old quarry at Stanton-by-Bridge, perhaps 
Mr. Purchas’s station. — W. H. Painter. “ Indeed R. thyrsoideus , 
Wimm.”— Dr. Focke. 
Rubus micans , Gren. and Godr. Near Valley, Holyhead, August, 
1893.— J. E. Griffith. The pieces sent me with this label cannot 
possibly go to R. micans. They were too advanced (or too burnt up) 
when collected for certain determination, but they seem to belong to 
the pulcherrimus-nemoralis group. — W. M. R. 
R. leucostachys , Sm. ; E. F. Linton. In the woods, in shade and 
in open places, near Monkton Combe, N.W. Wilts, 22nd July, 1893. 
Hedge near the Railway Station, Drigg, S.W. Cumberland, 22nd 
September, 1893. Not recorded for vice counties 7 and 70 in ‘Top 
Bot.’ p. 140. — Charles Bailey. All R. leucostachys , an abundant 
plant in Wilts. — W. M. R. 
R. pyraintdalis , Kalt. ; W. M. Rogers and E. F. Linton. In lane 
to Potterne, south of Devizes, central AViltshire, 28th July, 1893. 
Species not tabulated in ‘ Topogr. Bot.’— Charles Bailey. This 
must, I believe, go with the Rev. A. Ley’s Dinmore AAffiods (Hereford- 
shire) “ pyramidalis, var.” referred to in the Club’s 1892 ‘Report,’ p. 
363. AVhile almost indistinguishable from typical pyramidalis in 
most respects, the close mat of hair on the stem is quite abnormal for 
that species, strongly recalling R. leucostachys. Mr. Ley speaks of his 
plant as “widely distributed in Herefordshire;” and Mr. Griffith 
sends what seems the same form (under the name R. mucronaius , 
var. trifoliatus) from Bethesda, Carnarvonshire. — W. M. R. Since 
the foregoing note was written Dr. Focke has confirmed, without 
qualification , my suggestion of the name R. pyramidalis, Kalt., 
for a Lough Dan (Co. Wicklow) plant, of Mr. R. Lloyd Praeger’s 
collecting, with the same exceptionally hairy stem as Mr. Bailey’s and 
Mr. Ley’s plants, and, so far as I can see, identical with them in other 
respects. — AA ; . M. R. 
R. pyramidalis , Kalt., f. eglandulosa. Bere AA r ood, Dorset, 6th 
July, 1893. I have sent this as an example of a form which I have 
found to be somewhat widely distributed (Somersetshire, Dorset, 
Carnarvonshire). It is quite eglandular, but seems to differ from 
R. pyramidalis, Kalt., in no other way. It (the Dorset plant) was 
thought by the late Mr. Briggs to be very nearly the same as the 
R. hirtifolius of ‘ FI. Plym.’ I think that this is not really the case. 
AVliat the Plymouth plant may be is as yet somewhat uncertain. But 
it is not R. pyramidalis, and perhaps not R. hirtifolius. — R. P. 
Murray. I agree with Mr. Murray’s remarks on this plant. It is 
certainly distinct from the R. hirtifolius of ‘ FI. Plym.’, whose nearest 
allies seem to be Focke’s R. grains and R. leucandrus. The Rev. A. 
Ley sends just the same plant as Mr. Murray’s from Shirl AVood, 
Herefordshire, 31st July, 1893, and on this he has recently received 
the following determinati >n from Dr. Focke: — ‘ R. pyramidalis, Kalt. ; 
somewhat more glabrous than the typical plant.’ — AV. M. R. 
