REPORT FOR 1 89 1 . 
3 2 7 
by the late Mr. Briggs. There are points of difference between these 
closely allied plants that may serve to separate them : notably, the 
hairy stem of argenteus , its white-felted foliage, and the constant 
presence of setie upon the panicle. No glands have been seen on the 
crythrinus of this neighbourhood. The panicles, moreover, are some- 
what different in shape. Petals pale pink; filaments white, about 
equalling the green styles. — J ames W. White. “Yes; differing 
slightly from R. erythrinus , Genev., as pointed out by Mr. White in 
‘Journal of Botany’ 1892, p. n.” — W. Moyle Rogers. 
Rubus sp. Pengethley, Herefordshire, 12th August, 1891; and 
Pengethley, Herefordshire, 29th September, 1891 . — Augustin Ley. 
“ Both R. argenteus , P. J. Muell.” — W. Moyle Rogers. 
R. rhamnifolius , W. & N. Aberystwith, July, 1891. This 
beautiful plant grows upon rough pasture between Llanbadarn Church 
and the Devil’s Bridge Road. Passed by Dr. Focke. — W. Hunt 
Painter. “The panicle is, I believe, without doubt a strongly 
armed one of R. Lindleianus , Lees. If the one leaf (barren stem) 
belongs to the same (as it may do) it is curiously untypical.” — W. 
Moyle Rogers. 
R. erythrinus , Genev. Roadside near Washford, South Somerset, 
29th July, 1891. — J. W. White. “Yes.” — W. Moyle Rogers. 
R. erythrinus , Genev. Leigh Down, near Clifton, North Somerset, 
23rd July, 1891. — J. W. White. “Yes.” — W. Moyle Rogers. 
R. erythrinus , Genev. Near the Avon, below Bristol, West 
Glostershire, 23rd August, 1891. — J. W. White. “Probably right, 
but hardly typical.” — W. Moyle Rogers. 
R. erythrinus , Genev. St. Weonards, Herefordshire, 5 th Sep- 
tember, 1891 . — Augustin Ley. “I suppose this is right; but it is 
hardly possible to come to a certain determination with so late a 
specimen only to judge by.” — W. Moyle Rogers. 
R. erythrinus , Genev. Bigsweir, Monmouthshire, 2nd September, 
1891 . — Augustin Ley. “This appears to me good R. amplificatus, 
Lees.” — W. Moyle Rogers. 
R. erythrinus , Genev., fide Dr. Focke. Near Cuerham, Bangor, 
September, 1891. — J. E. Griffith. “Is there not some mistake here ? 
So far as I can judge from the specimen, I should have thought it 
nearer R. viilicaulis , Koehl.” — W. Moyle Rogers. 
R. macroacanthus , Blox., non Weihe. Near Mancetter, Warwick- 
shire, 14th September, 1884. I am sending a few examples of this 
plant from Rev. A. Bloxam’s old station, quoted as near Hartshill, 
but I think the station is really in the parish of Mancetter. It is very 
near R. thyrsoideus, Wimm., as understood by Mr. Bloxam, but 
differs in having purplish petals, more declining prickles on the 
panicle, and a rounder and more strongly cuspidate terminal leaflet, 
which is less lobed than in his typical R. thyrsoideus, It has 
the same habit of growth. — J. E. Bagnall. No remarks by Mr. 
Rogers 
R. Dumnoniensis, Bab. Howie Green, Herefordshire, 14th August, 
1891. Pointed out to the Rev. W. H. Purchas and myself by the 
Rev. W. M. Rogers, who pronounced it at once to be the above. 
