REPORT FOR 1 892. 
363 
Rubus podophyllus, P. J. Mull. Near Felyn Fawr, Bethesda, August, 
1892. — J. E. Griffith. “Not R. podophyilus, as I understand it; or 
very near it. It rather strongly recalls plants which Dr. Focke has 
put under R. saxicolus, P. J. Mull, though they have longer hair on 
the panicle-rachis and mostly quinate leaves j but I know no other 
name to suggest.” — W. M. Rogers. 
R. leucostachys, Smith. Roadside, Fellbrigg, in the neighbourhood 
of Cromer, i8th July, 1891. Not recorded for vice-county 27 in 
‘Topographical Botany,’ Ed. 2, p. 140. — Charles Bailey. 
R. leucosiachys, Sm., var. angusitfolius, W. M. Rogers. Sutton 
Holms, Dorset, September, 1891. — R. P. Murray. Boars Hill, 
Berks, September, 1892. — ^G. C. Druce. 
R. macrothyrsos^ Lange. Hedge near Chard, Somerset, 1 9th August, 
1892. — R. P. Murray. “ This seems identical with the plants from 
N. Wales (Yide ‘Bot. Ex. Club Rept.,’ 1889, 248, 249) and from Dorset, 
which Dr. Focke first named R. macrothyrsos, J. Lange— a name which 
he now considers must give place to R. gytimostachys, Genev. It is a 
stronger and far more glandular plant than another which he has 
similarly named for me from Herefordshire, and which agrees perhaps 
better on the whole with Genevier’s description, though not with the 
majority of his specimens in the Cambridge Herb., as these appeared 
to me to be mostly intermediate between these extreme forms. Since 
writing as above, I learn from Mr. Murray that Dr. Focke has confirmed 
the name gyjnnost(*''hys ( ^ inacroihyrsos) for this Chard plant.” — W. 
M. Rogers. 
R. pyramidalis^ Kalt., variety? Woods, Dinmore, Hereford, 
22nd September, 1892. I suspect this to be substantially the same 
plant as that contributed to the Club last year by Rev. W. H. 
Purchas, from the same locality, under the same names, and assigned 
in the Report (p. 328) to R. gymnostachys, Gen., by Dr. Focke and 
Rev. W. M. Rogers. The plant now sent is widely distributed in 
Herefordshire, and has been assigned to several names. Hence, I 
venture to send it again this year. — Augustin Ley. “I feel 
considerable difficulty here. If I had the stem only to judge by, I 
should say R. leucostachys, because of the close mat of hairs. The 
strong prickles on the panicle seem to point the same way. But, 
in most other respects, the characters (and especially the narrow 
petals) seem rather those of one of the nearly eglandular forms of 
R. pyra?nidalis, Kalt.” — W. M. Rogers. 
R. pyramidalis, By Henwood, Berks, September, 1892. — 
G. C. Druce. “The form it assumes in open sunny situations.” — 
W. M. Rogers. 
R. pyramidalis, Kalt. Near Llanberis, August, 1892. — J. E. 
Griffith. “I suggested this name to Mr. Griffith for this handsome 
plant a short time ago, and I know no better now ; but it is excep- 
tionally glandular for pyramidalis, and there are other features (the 
somewhat mixed armature of the subglabrous stem, kc.) which make 
it, at all events, untypical.” — W. M. Rogers. 
R. macrophyllus, W. k. N. Middle Marwood, N. Devon, 29th July, 
