REPORT FOR 1891. 
33 1 
Rubus fuscus , W. and N. = R. Babingtonii , Bell-Salt. Leigh Wood, 
N. Somerset, 13th August, 1891. — J. W. White. “Yes, near the form 
so frequent on the borders of the New Forest.” — W. Moyle Rogers. 
R. fuscus, W. Lodge Grove, Bishopswood, Herefordshire, 28th 
August, 1891. ‘ R. fuscus, variety.’ — Dr. Focke, 1891. See ‘Report,’ 
1886, p. 150; 1887, p. 176; 1888, p. 212. The present plant is 
from the same extensive wood, but from a drier part, where it assumes 
a smaller and more creeping habit. — Augustin Ley. “Yes, R. 
fuscus, W. and N. var.”— W. Moyle Rogers. 
R. fuscus, W. and N., fide Dr. W. O. Focke. R. heteroclitus, Blox. 
fide Prof. Babington. Near Shirley, South Derbyshire, 12th October, 
1891. — W. R. Linton. “ I believe that there is no real discrepancy 
in these determinations. In 1889, I pointed out to Di. Focke and 
Mr. Briggs that Warwickshire specimens in my herbarium, collected 
by Mr. Bagnall, and labelled respectively R. heteroclitus and R. 
adscitus, were clearly identical with New Forest R. fuscus; and they 
assented without hesitation. Mr. Linton’s Shirley panicle agrees 
fairly well with these ; but the barren piece is too poor to pronounce 
on. It hardly seems the same.” — W. Moyle Rogers. 
R. rudis, Weihe. Near New Bath Hotel, Matlock Bath, 24th Sep- 
tember, 1891. — W. Hunt Painter. R. rudis, Weihe. Matlock 
Bath, 24th September, 1891. — W. Hunt Painter. R. anglosaxonicus , 
Gelert. Matlock Bath, Derbyshire, 27 th September, 1891. — W. H. 
Purchas. “All three R. rudis, Weihe, but last two much less glandular 
than usual, and with more conspicuously hairy panicle. My first 
impression was that the last two might be a hybrid. Evidently one 
and the same.” — W. Moyle Rogers. 
R. sertiflorus, Mull. Rigg’s Wood, Herefordshire, 24th September, 
1891 (see ‘Report’ 1888 p. 210, 1890, p. 293). Dr. Focke writes upon 
specimens of this plant gathered in Rigg’s Wood, nth August, 1891. 
‘ Can this plant be kept separate from R. fuscus ? It is not quite the 
same, but near it.’ — Augustin Ley. “ Under Mr. Ley’s guidance I 
had the advantage of seeing this plant in situ last August, and I now 
agree with him in thinking it distinct from both R. Radula and R. 
Loehri, with the latter of which Dr. Focke is still disposed to associate 
it as ‘not quite the same, but near’ (see ‘Report’ 1890, p. 293).” — 
W. Moyle Rogers. 
R. Loehri, Wirtg. Howie Green, Herefordshire, 14th August, 1891. 
Petals narrow, white, stamens white, exceeding the white styles. I 
have no note from Dr. Focke or Mr. Rogers upon the present plant. — 
Augustin Ley. “A r ery weak R. fuscus, W. & N. Dr. Focke wrote 
to me a few months ago ‘ I consider R. Loehri as a weak var. of 
fuscus .’” — W. Moyle Rogers. 
R. Lintoni, Focke. Rigg's Wood, Herefordshire, 24th September, 
1891; and nth August, 1891. On the Rigg’s Wood plant, the 
Rev. W. M. Rogers, who saw it growing, suggests “rather near Drejeri .” 
Dr. Focke, to whom dried specimens were sent, says “ It looks indeed 
like a very small specimen of Drejeri .” — Augustin Ley. “See 
‘Report’ for 1890, p. 294. I had the advantage of collecting this 
plant with Mr. Ley last August. It is, I think, clearly distinct from 
