REPORT FOR 1894. 
439 
to Mr, Rogers as “i?. sulcaius}^^ He says “I do not think this 
will do for R. sulcatus, though in some particulars it seems to 
approach it. Further observation will not improbably prove it to 
be R. suberecius.'” — W. A. Shoolbred. “i?. suberectus, Anders.” — 
E. F. L. and W. R. L. 
Rubus Rogersii, Linton. Blackdown Hills, Somerset, 28th Aug., 
1894. — R. P. Murray. “Identical in stem and leaves with the typical 
plant as found in other counties; but the panicle is quite abnormal.” — 
VV. M. R. 
R. carpinifolius^ W. & N. Valley near Bomer Mere, loth Sept., 
and Cliff near the Church, Yorton, Salop, nth Sept., 1894. — F. A. 
Rogers, for W. Moyle Rogers. 
R. incurvatus, Bab. Near the Cottage, Knock Drin, Co. 
Westmeath, Oct., 1894, Record for Ireland. It is very abundant 
in the locality stated. — H. C. Levinge. 
R. longistamineus^ Focke. Yate Common, West Gloucestershire, 
July and August, 1894. A form of Sprejigdii that is probably 
unknown at any other station. It differs considerably from the typical 
plant, and is found abundantly on the open common. — Jas. W. White. 
“A small form of R. Lindleianus with finer leaf-toothing and broader 
panicle than usual, and rather exceptionally hairy rachis and pedicels. 
This is the plant which Dr. Focke formerly suggested we should place 
under R. Sprengelii, Weihe, with the above varietal name (see ‘ Journ. 
Bot.,^ 1893, 1 15); but on my sending him now a good series of Mr. 
White’s specimens he agrees with my determination that the plant is 
‘ nothing else than R. Lindleianus,^ and adds ‘ The specimen I saw at 
a former time looked so very near W. Sprengelii thaX I did not compare 
it with R. Lindleianus . The present materials, however, show certainly 
the identity.’ Its variation from type is due, I suppose, to its growth 
on an exposed common.” — W. M. Rogers. 
R. rha 7 nnifolius, W. & N. (sp. coll). Ham Common, Surrey, 25th 
Aug., 1894. Petals pink, small, crumpled, fugitive. Mr. Rogers says, 
“This is a very interesting form, but it is one of a series, and I have 
collected and seen others intermediate between it and our ordinary 
rhajniiifolius,2iS\d. Focke advises our being content with R. rhamnifolius, 
W. & N. (sp. coll.), to represent them all in our present list.” — A. H. 
Wolley-Dod. 
R. nemoralis, P. J, Muell. (Genev. non Bab.) Branksome Park, 
Dorset, 22nd June, 1894. Dr. Focke agrees with me in thinking 
that this is just Mueller’s plant, as described by Genevicr (‘ Ess. 
Mon.’ p. 186). See ‘Journ. of Bot’ 1894, p. 42. As yet I have 
seen quite the same plant only from W. Cornwall, Dorset, S. Hants, 
and Herefordshire. — W. Moyle Rogers. 
R. pulcherrimus, Neuman. West Cliff, Bournemouth, S. Hants, 
3rd June and yth July, 1893. Slepe, Lytchett Minster, Dorset, 
September, 1893. I think about the average form of the South of 
Plngland, where this species is only occasionally as robust as it is 
commonly in the North and in Scandinavia. — W. Moyle Rogers. 
