Perhaps as one general characteristic mark distinguishing this from suberectus, I might mention the prickles of the barren stem not confined to the angles, very numerous and near together, long and very slender, arising from a very short, contracted base, which they twice or more exceed in length.

Specimens of this are given in 'Fasciculus of Shropshire Rubi.' 4. R. plicatus, W. & N.

The specimens given in the Fasciculus of this species are not those of the Fl. Shropsh., but identical with R. plicatus, Bab. Syn. I did not know this plant when I published the Flora. For some distinctive marks see under R. affinis below.

5. R. affinis, W. & N.

I believe the specimens of this species given in the Fasciculus are the true affinis of W. and N., Rub. Germ. t. 3, p. 18. My friend Babington kindly concedes me the priority of detecting this addition to our Flora, though only so by a few days. It is, however, highly satisfactory that we arrived at the same conclusion from an examination of plants from different and far distant localities.

This plant is not identical with the R. affinis of Fl. Shropsh. 226; the var. B. of which work is now referrible to R. cordifolius of W. and N. and Bab. Syn., and the var. . to R. corylifolius of Smith and Bab. Syn., as will be noticed under those species hereafter.

I would offer the following description :

R. affinis, W. & N.-Stem suberect or arcuate, angular, nearly glabrous; prickles strong, slightly deflexed or declinate; leaves 5-nate, green on both sides, with silky pubescence underneath, plane at the base, somewhat wavy towards the apex, coarsely crenato-cuspidato-serrated, lowermost stalked; panicle compound, leafy, tomentose upwards, branches cymose, erecto-patent, prickles more or less deflexed; sepals reflexed in fruit, with a long, acuminate point. Rub. Germ. t. 3, p.

18.

-

HAB.-Shawbury Heath; Haughmond Hill; Gamester Lane, near Westfelton; hedges of Shrewsbury turnpike road, near Westfelton; hedges of Holyhead road, near Bicton Grove, near Shrewsbury; all in Shropshire.

Barren stem suberect, sometimes elongated and arching, angular, furrowed, dark purple, glabrous, or with a few scattered weak hairs. Prickles confined to the angles, large and strong, generally straight and declinate, though sometimes slightly deflexed, from a broad, dilated, compressed, purple base, yellow at the tips. Leaves digitate,

VOL. III.

M

5-nate, on slightly hairy, purple petioles, armed with numerous strong, long, hooked prickles, purple at the base, yellow at the tips. Leaflets moderately coriaceous, yet flexible, plane at the base, more or less wavy on the margins towards the apex (in a young or not fully expanded or developed state very plicate), all stalked, dull green and nearly glabrous, or with only a few scattered hairs above, paler, tomentose, and with soft, silky, shining pubescence beneath, veins prominent, the midrib armed with a few stout, hooked prickles, not so long or stout as those on the petioles. Terminal leaflet large, broadly cordato-ovate or even orbiculari-cordate, generally shortly cuspidate, coarsely crenato-cuspidato-serrated: intermediate pair irregularly roundish-obovate; lowermost narrower, oblong. Stipules linear, with a long point, hairy. Flowering stem angular, with scattered hairs below, which become denser and even tomentose above. Leaves ternate below, large and simple above, becoming narrower as they approach the extremity of the rachis. Panicle compound, leafy, branches cymose, ascending, erecto-patent, hairy, the secondary branches and pedicels hairy and densely tomentose. Prickles large, from a broad, compressed base, rather numerous, deflexed below, straighter and declinate in the upper part: those of the secondary branches and pedicels slenderer and more crowded, more or less curved, or even nearly straight and declinate. Sepals densely tomentose and hairy, white, and with a few short, slender prickles without, white and densely tomentose within, with a long acuminate point, strongly reflexed in fruit. Petals white. Petals white. Fruit black.

This plant seems allied on one side to R. cordifolius, and on the other to R. plicatus, though readily distinguished from both. The somewhat plicate leaves, which are of a very different cordate form, easily perceived on comparison, but difficult to express in words, and their differently formed and much coarser serratures, the cymose panicle, and the strong, deflexed prickles on the panicle and flowering shoot, separate it from cordifolius, in which the leaves are flat and less coarsely serrated, of a different cordate outline, the barren stems always arcuate, and the prickles on the rather long panicle and flowering shoot slenderer, all straight and declining.

The form and serratures of the leaves, the hairy and densely tomentose panicle and calyx, and the strong prickles of the barren stem, distinguish it from plicatus, in which the panicle is pilose, and wants the under coating of tomentum, the barren stems have slender prickles, and the sepals are scatteredly hairy on the outside, chiefly

at the base and apex, the white tomentum with which the inside is entirely lined forming only a narrow white line on the margins.

Mr. Babington, who has communicated his notes to me, quotes Arrhen. Rub. Suec. 25, Fries, Summa, 165, to our plant, and considers it identical with a plant he has from Loch Eil, Scotland.

I think, also, plants gathered at Jardine Hall, Dumfriesshire (No. 15) by Mr. Babington, and others in Cowleigh Park, near Great Malvern, Worcestershire, by the Rev. A. Bloxam, will probably be referred to this species.

Mr. Babington also mentions that he detected (1847) a variety at Llanberis, Caernarvonshire, in which the "leaves are pubescent, but not tomentose beneath, and the prickles of the panicle much fewer, smaller, and more slender."

6. R. nitidus, W. & N.

This species, of which specimens are given in the Fasciculus, is not described in the Shropsh. Fl. Mr. Babington identifies our plant with that of his Synopsis. It does not, however, agree with the figure in Rub. Germ. t. 4, though corresponding generally with the description in that work. It is common in the hedges and thickets around Shrewsbury.

It is easily recognized by the coarsely doubly serrated leaves, more or less wavy or plaited on the margins, which in their form and serrature bear much resemblance to those of R. rudis a. of the glandulose section. Its flowers are white, conspicuous and showy, the petals hanging loosely. The panicle is usually very large and compound, the branches distant, spreading in a very divaricate form, frequently, as Babington's Synopsis expressively remarks, "nearly at right angles to the rachis."

There is a peculiarity about the panicle which is characteristic, and deserves attention. The peduncles and pedicels divide or branch beyond or above the middle of their length, and the pedicels of the lateral flowers, in every division of the panicle, exceed in length the pedicel of the terminal flower; which causes the flowers to appear as if all arranged on the outside of the panicle, whilst the eye looks amongst the branches as into a skeleton frame-work.

Weihe and Nees, Rub. Germ. p. 20, describe the prickles of the panicle as curved, "ad instar cornu recurvis," but in our plant, although a few recurved prickles may be detected in the lower portion of the panicle, or rather on the flowering shoot where it joins on to the panicle, the generality of them are straight and declinate.

They have also a peculiarity in their arrangement worthy of notice.

They are slender, though strong and very sharp, very various in length, from very short to very long, but being longest and most crowded and numerous about the middle of the rachis, and also about the middle of the peduncles and pedicels; the base of each of the latter being nearly destitute of any prickles.

W. A. LEIGHTON.

Luciefelde, Shrewsbury,
February 17th, 1848.

(To be continued).

Discovery of Viola hirta in Kincardineshire.
By ANDREW KERR, Esq.

ACCORDING to the 'British Flora' of Sir William Jackson Hooker, Viola hirta has only been found in the vicinity of Edinburgh, and is consequently rare in Scotland. It therefore gives me much pleasure to state that I found this plant in the month of April, 1847, on the south-east extremity of Kincardineshire, about three miles north-east from the town of Montrose.

Professor Balfour, of Edinburgh, has found it in other places besides the immediate vicinity of Edinburgh, and thinks that the plant is more abundant than was previously supposed.

As it flowers early in the season, it may have been overlooked in many places. I trust these remarks will tend to stir up the enthusiasm of botanists to look out for the early gems of Flora and record localities, as it is only by an acute observation and recording of localities that a proper geographical distribution of the British flora can be obtained.

55, Murray Street, Montrose, February 18th, 1848.

ANDREW Kerr.

Note on the specimens of Sedum reflexum mentioned by Mr. Watson, Phytol. iii. 46. By MRS. RUSSELL.

HAVING just read in the present number of the 'Phytologist' (Phytol. iii. 46) Mr. Watson's notice of the Tremadoc Rock Sedum, sent by me in December to the London Botanical Society, it may perhaps be worth while to state that in the summer of 1839 I gathered and examined numerous specimens from the same locality, and felt not

the slightest doubt as to their being S. rupestre. On my stock being exhausted, I begged my friend Miss Holland to send me the further supply which has been communicated to the Society. I saw the same plant growing in abundance, together with S. Forsterianum, on the rocks at Barmouth, where the two varieties pass so insensibly into each other that it is almost impossible in some cases to draw the line between them.

Brislington, February 21, 1848.

ANNA RUSSELL.

[Mr. Watson having done me the honour to mention my name in connexion with the British species of Sedum (Cyb. Brit. 401), I may say that I am quite at a loss to understand how any confusion can exist between plants which appear to me so extremely different as Sedum reflexum and Sedum rupestre. It will be of little avail to point out discrepancies where I can find no point of similarity except in the colour of the flowers. Still, without noticing botanical characters, I cannot avoid calling attention to the difference in size; S. reflexum being four times larger than S. rupestre, and when the two are cultivated in company its stems stand out amongst those of rnpestre as oxen among sheep." The discrepancies between S. rupestre and S. Forsterianum are much more subtle; the size, habit and entire superficial appearance are similar, colour alone excepted, yet the colour is so constantly and so decidedly distinct that they are instantly separable by this single character. In cultivation the discrepancy becomes still more marked, and the different constitutions of the plants is observable: placed on a dry wall at Peckham, rupestre thrives, but Forsterianum dies; placed under the drip of water, Forsterianum thrives, but rupestre dies. I have never found rupestre except on the driest parts of exposed rocks: I have never found Forsterianum except in the spray of waterfalls. I was not fortunate enough to meet with it at Barmouth, where Mrs. Russell records its occurrence.-E. N.].

On the Equisetum fluviatile of the London Catalogue of British Plants.' By EDWARD NEWMAN.

SINCE Mr. Watson published his remarks (Phytol. iii. 1) in defence of the omission of Equisetum fluviatile from the 'London Catalogue of British Plants,' that gentleman has examined the Linnean speci