REPORT FOR 1892. 
369 
Rubus lo 7 igithyrsiger X rosaceus. Chard Common, Somerset, 19th 
Aug., 1892. — R. P. Murray. This certainly looks like what one wmuld 
expect in ^ R. longithyrsiger x rosaceus,’’ but I must add that it seems 
identical, but for the ashy felted panicle leaves (which would be 
strange in such a hybrid), with a splendid plant which the Rev. A. 
Ley showed me in some quantity in Linton Wood, Herefordshire, 
last summer, and which Dr. Focke pronounced “near the Continental 
R. hirtus, W.K.” — W. M. Rogers. Rev. R. P. Murray says “it was 
a very handsome plant, I have no doubt the name on the label is 
correct. Both parents grew freely in the immediate vicinity. Only 
one bush was seen which was nearly sterile, although a few drupelets 
had formed here and there.” 
R. ccesius x Idceus. Barren. Breamore Down, S. Hants. Green 
styles equalling or exceeding white stamens. 5th August, 1892. Very fine 
in small thickets on Breamore Down (chalk), S. Hants, 13th August, 
1892. New, I think, to the County ; not given in the ‘Flora.’ — E. F. 
Linton. “Yes; = R. pseudo-Idcsus,l.Q].’^ — W. M. Rogers. 
Dryas odopetala, L., var. pilosa, Bab. Castle Taylor, county 
Galway, i6th May, 1892.— H. C. Levinge. “I have not seen a 
specimen from Professor Babington, but this seems to answ^er his 
description in most of the points.” — Arth. Bennett. 
Geum mtennediuin, Ehrh. Near Bradfield College, Berks. July, 
1892. New County Record. — G. C. Druce. 
Fotentilla norvegim, L. Ash heap, Woolwich Arsenal, Kent, July, 
1892. — A. Wolley-Dod. 
R. mixta, Nolte ? P. procinnbens x reptans ? Wealden bank, near 
Witley, Surrey, 22nd August, 1892. — E. S. Marshall. 
P. Sibbaldi, Haller, f. Glen Aan, Banff, August, 1891. — 
G. C. Druce. 
Alchemilla vulgaris, L., var. glabra, Wimm. et Grab. Corrie, near 
Aonach Mor, Glen Spean, Westerness, August, 1891. See ‘Annals 
of Scottish Nat. Hist.,’ January, 1893, pp. 32-37, where I have pointed 
out that the names of our Alchemilla in the Lond. Cat. require 
emendation, i.e., Alchcniilla vulgaris, L., var. b. glabra, Wimm. et 
Grab.; and var. c. montana (Willd.) — ? There is some doubt 
whether the latter is really a British plant. In ‘FI. Nied. Ost.,’ Beck 
considers the plant of Wimmer and Grabowski to be identical with 
the A. conglomei'ata, Schmidt, ‘ FI. Boem.’ iv. 89 (1789), and reduces 
it to the variety conglomcrata of A. vulgaris. Mr. N. E. Brown 
suggests that the var. montana of Willdenow is identical with the var. 
hybrida, Linn., but this, according to A. von Kerner, is not the case, 
Linnaeus basing his var. hybrida essentially on Barrelier’s Alchemilla 
minor hirsuta cmcritia, and his remarks in ‘ Hort. Cliff.’ would lead 
us to think of the hybrid form between A. vulgaris and A. alpina, 
which Christ has named A. splefidefis, or of the Alchemilla which 
M. Bieberstein calls A. pubescens, which is found over a large area on 
the mountains of southern Europe, (including Mount Ventoux), and 
which agrees well with Barrelier’s figure, but which we have no 
evidence as yet to justify us in calling a British plant, or indeed, 
according to Kerner, of identifying it with the plant Willdenow called 
