REPORT FOR 1 896. 
5*5 
R. mollissimus , Rogers, (i) Verwood, Dorset, 24th July and 24th 
August 1894. — E. F. Linton. (2) Siliwen Woods, Bangor, Car- 
narvon, June 1896. — Jno. E. Griffith. “I am responsible for the 
naming of both these plants. They may not be exactly identical with 
each other, nor with what I consider typical R. mollissimus , but they 
cannot, I believe, be separated from it, and they seem to show 
conclusively how near R. mollissimus may come to R. danicus , Focke. 
It may, however, be usually distinguished from it without much 
difficulty by its leaflets being remarkably flaccid, very rugose above 
and softly grey-felted beneath, and its panicle broadly cylindrical- 
truncate and armed only with weak acicular silvaticus- like prickles. 
Its petals, styles, and stamens are more commonly pink than in 
R. danicus. The stalk of its terminal leaflet also seems uniformly 
shorter as compared with the length of the leaflet.” — W. M. R. 
R. hesperius , Rogers. (1) By Lough Corrib, S. W. of Cong, W. 
Galway, Ireland, 10th June 1896.— E. S. Marshall. (2) Near 
Clonbur, Co. Galway, 9th July 1896. — E. S. Marshall and W. A. 
Shoolbred. “See ‘Journ. Bot.,’ 1896, 504. Good characteristic 
specimens from the two botanists, to whom we are indebted for the 
discovery of this bramble.” — W. M. R. 
R. lenliginosits, Lees = R. cambricus, Focke. ‘Flora of Anglesey and 
Carnarvon.’ July 1896, near Bangor, Carnarvonshire. — J. E. Griffith. 
“Yes; see ‘Journ. Bot.,’ 1896, 286, 291.” — W. M. R. 
R. micans , G. and G. ? Eastham Wood, Cheshire, nth August 
1896. — J. A. Wheldon. “I think R. lentiginosus , Lees, var., with 
longer petals and untypical foliage, approaching R. Qucsticrii. See 
above. County record. Not R. micans , Gren. and Godr.” — W. M. R. 
R. orthoclados , Ley. Beacon Hill Woods, Monmouthshire, 4th 
July 1893. Varying, as noticed in the description (‘Journal of 
Botany,’ 1896, p. 160), in the amount of glands, and in the plication 
and serration of the leaves. These variations will be noticed in the 
specimens sent. I believe, however, that all represents a single 
species. — Augustin Ley. “ Rather nearly allied to R. hesperius ; 
see ‘ Journal of Botany,’ 1896, p. 159.” — W. M. R. 
R. hirtifolius , Muell. and Wirtg., var. danicus , Focke. Callander, 
W. Perth, July 1896. See above, under R. mollissimus , and compare 
‘ Journ. Bot.,’ 1897, p. 46. — W. Moyle Rogers. 
R. gymnostachys, Gen. (1) Kerne Bridge, Herefordshire, 30th 
July 1896. (2) Glynhir, Carmarthenshire, 16th July 1896. Both 
plants seen and certified by Rev. W. M. Rogers. The Herefordshire 
specimens are from the same bushes as those issued in the ‘ Sets of 
British Rubi,’ No. 14. The plant is extremely abundant near Glynhir, 
Carmarthenshire ; it is very scarce in Herefordshire. — Augustin Ley. 
“ (1) is identical with the plant from the same locality thus named for 
me by Dr. Focke in 1891, and justifies his reference to this form as 
