a Aad em aig oat t Te Solrwr acer eee aA Se Oi AAI eS PS Ss CE npr td EDA e rmamne — rs epee 95 — = SS rr ee aha ~ -~ SS ~aete a IEE TS A> rts - SAS > aoe SOK oS Se a eAA wees ee ee x ee eRe eI Fete a yw “ ~ ee - _ . ~ ~ & . CT ae SS Be SOS Oe eel eee Ee FESR RRR SS, RRA EA PRO I Oe ere ada iacaes, eee eee eee ee eee ee ee ee “— kt res mx, CRORE ST AS ee et OR hhh he a 7% OS ES OLE kA hk IEEE Pale . : Raat x . antndaptiaann tnt nto bed SS a eet TP OE OTTO I OEE SA SN nd Kedutne Sedaaed a Oa eT ee TR Serer ere SIO TOE EI Pg KOK SOR RORER TK a ae or eT <= Om ree eee ee See ox ere Pees SSSA AS re ~ ree OO POTTED Perey eX oer Weer ys SPOOR LE hes Lo * arate rer + + =, Fag a ae aes ve ews Fda eye Ye yie FoYur a ee erat “AS e8 as - - ww Ca ga A at Mn ana ten nent ne nat tat he A OE PO PS SSO SSS OE - _—e - . . — er teeters eneeen ew ome nee ee = a er OR ee ee OT RIL ST NY. tae we a ee ag aes, —_ = x 7 x ry. — vy rer A x< Ne ee es Note es ee oer * AOS RR xa SR RR Kh A tad COSCO CEST POS: AERA AD ee ee Lee Ce MRT 7%, SPELLS EE PIE LIES SEES ar a Ck AAAS " : 5 OO I, EP Se aeaennant cn lS pa i ee a ME a — --0-~ - a ny RD SS ee —— nal pindnclnn nen ncn eS a ee ee ee eT TY ete re ee eT ee ee ee IT. Ay ay TT EL ee x a SS eS SEIT OOK SRE A SAS SAE EAL re SS TAREE, LLP SETA AT AP rs See SEE eS ee eS A ne Nee ee to ee RR thn ta he ae Te ta Oh heheheh eb tote Be Bate, Pa eS SS POLST A: SE EEF LP E PRE LL L A A a aon — ae Nocentynncmctanne tet enone Bao ol eet nan orca ere Ct a a a OAL ee : Sees en - an Lye Ee wee ee ree ee LETT SST STR IT NN SS OE ae ee OEE EET IOS Ee a é. x< ere eS ewe CLLR AAAS SS AAA SSE, OO KR A DA te RE Pe A CSET te oes SK KR RR KA te he RA A ASA AE AL SASS AS Sa eilntector OCS A STE CEL EL LEELA SIE DDIM a ee ——— — ee - ES TN nena ask, Mash ean a a Att A a A A CAPA IIE LOL er i a IL IE LES LEE - apaes a aot eS perry res ree tg A PN a IPP OL i aE REO LITT CP ONTO ELE I OLE OTTO SI IS SII SS rere , re Taree Se OSTEO R R Batata dig t t hg t Pig gD II SPIN EEE EE EEE EE SITE ELE PEE IEEE ELI PG PEE PLLA E ALD RANE, . * Pes a RRO REARS EERE EAS SEES ALIS it Pee ee eS OA Tara hata Ea, oo PoBa SBP ode to anton a On BIER AS PE AAA A San te eee alnanding : —_ — . . _ a nn Ae NR NANA A I Se NOS ANE ST i ee ee ee ee eens - eneceooncenet RIO aan eee OSLO IO IOI EER MII III ISIE I TA IIIS a ee oe Fe ae ae . oe Se ee OER AA A a ek a, LR EERE EA RRR ARE ee IOI ITS SS Sal SN aaa PLETE EEE SE ESE ee } CORK BRAKE ARERR AA BAAS BSS DEAS KAA SS AAA Kk A a Bee beta a nto te Bnd gle KX ODEO RN a Bagh Ta Dale Bo Ba Pa Poot Sohne a SoD be Sus Dy ORI, IS SAAR IS SS Cee REE EERSTE Si ee = ete : “= a : ‘ A ee oar nee A SO . ie ietnticlncintnclntinecnatedatiantvcncinaaamd . - eee eT TT ee ET I TT PETE NTE SS NPP LP IO ee EEE II OO IOI SA aoe oe PEE OT ee ee < ‘ —s Pe ee ee ee Oe ee ae @ OLE A AAAS A eS eee ELE SI I Isis dt isJdeeddtaactata ee ee ee Sey ee ee ee ‘ ‘ V Kev ee SSRIS Ae Se A NR ee Na A A RN ESE EEO. LL RELL ED AAI PL ALIS DB IP ILI I Pay Sf Joe ePID C1 ae oe : oy : AA, y y A, : x re Kern : A ; : ~ cet eee A ee Ne a SE pT LTP TT Te ee EL CEI IIIS ; ee a aa a a OC ee - ae SO ey — - ~ oe SOC SRC RR Ree ARK Mh he! CT ee a ee ee OLE RENEE RRR SAE ARP a PA Deb LLL REELS EAREEAEE RES SS SSS Z te _** < oe ee eS RR KKK A A ee AAR AA ABRARL AS ASS ASSESS ee See Se ee ee | POLL Dae Jo Paton Don te dr tebe Don po Pade Pn bund te tontn ud tf ion PA» 5 Eo AAAS tt ee ee ee OF ALK SS —— > Fenn amuinainsinaty > ie o p ca ee Nn ee o < a an aoe ~ ETE ET ee IT LOY. OER D LOLOL EO LEL CEERI II IIIT I ISI SS Pa oe — ure . « a SSS EEE EN RRS RE ERAN Re RR Th Be gS RRR ALR BE LEE AL REPL EDIE SOP LOL EEE RA RD DD hae a ee Zz xs. ~~? LA AAAS eee eS ee NE RR Me ME Nala leat tt at ate ae ne ee ene LRAA A AA tt te hob A EM te te pte feb DBE AF CSL EADS é Pe te a) < ote: = - a“ ~ - aes Fe Se NE I AT SSO eee i hae tee a A ALAA LLL ALLELE D IOI ——eeeewe = et eee aes : . EE TT TTT ee ee fe ee EEE TTL Te OE IIL ITI IS a Na EOS L OO Te eae ee Oper eee < ee eS ORR Re Bg A IR I ee Se Ot eS TP ST TS Dang CLS EASE ESS SIS IPS SSD Z exe ~~ x tr AKAD rt Rta te te eee ee eee EE EEE ht tet a tae aotete tate te te neo eee e ane RAKE FAAS AS AAA OE AR AAAAA AAA AR ew ew Po a ss a ooo - Aeon ann en a ea ee scat LL ALS OE . — . ~- Se ie a. a= > eee weveeere Oe EPSP LPL Oe TLE COOL IIS, 2 * ry A * SOE ESD AMAA AAD AAAAS SD nN KAA A ABAAAASAASASA row See eee ee eT TT Te a ae a” ox < < <_< 5 COO EEE KS TARAS SASS AA OOK AK A Et Pm Pn tm POPPE RELL Sat cata atatsta alates sate ae ae sae <> saben eae te cent ‘ oaner < a Esti lant ee AAA A FE SO SOE I - - ae SS. < — «ae e oe ed a = ee oe ee eo es SLEPT LTT Ce TEE COO OTITIS ISS Tg IS SM gt et PPL PLL LL DD IL OO ee ~- &- 7 ‘ASA SOOO AA AAA ASAD AAS Pe PEEL TL ITS PPI TI LISS TNS See et eT OCEARCTII SSIS IIIA ASS A SS SSS GPA CLEOPR IIIS x AAA Nee ae ee ee ye ee Oe ee KALA RA, CRRA NAKA AAAS KARL EA AAS AAS SA ALES 7 oP eT OT TS a ae ae KAD tendo Pato So Pn Papp f Sa pp pnb fbf PPP A eee ee Se ee ——— SEBS rear erations nce ean an ner anes neal - > er . Re AREER er eee en OE SOS GODS ORI RK RRB BK SAI IEA IA toe igich gh Doig Ps — . ee “= ee eS eS SS OTN TELE ELEE I ADE ISD ISLE LIISA IDE SAID OLLIE DOE <* w, ae ae x SSR RAR A A RRR Ra aA aaah a nto ° / a “ a - - _ ee NET Oe OE TIT Tere er TI Pe at PERT CCC CC CAACEEEELESR ae rae ~~ -* a A s_»A, sn AA AAA AA SAA SS ee ET TDS ODEO OEE TLS. FT Perr er TLL PTI ST Saeed eee eee KR S PAPE BADE PD DD ae SS 2 ae eee Se m . <* A SER a aA a a a eee ee ee ee DAA SRE DASA Dn dp bn bn te DP ‘ ¥ . vert AY : AAA, - y ‘ eee TT ee ee ee LY IIE SOR IID SIIB IAI LEI SADIE IKI TIED II IAP PPE REG Pep OPE eT - es ee oo ee eet ee Se ee ee ee ee > aoe 9 SRR ASA SS EERE KERR EAD Reda tg ta bg ppg ggg RRR REREPD LE APAI LIPID. ee ae ee ee eT ‘ Ses RA a a RR RR A Rh nN AE SESE TOSI SAIL ELI ie ee TIS OPED ASIDE ISL IES ag 97, ; e : A KA. g y LAs . Sy aE eT ee ee ee OLY a EIEIO I DDI ID IT RELA SA SID IS IAL LSI CIEL ID SGD Lo pp RE Es : oor COOOL SOREL RK Daeg gh eg a ya Pal gg GR ha SGI DIORA IPI PPE PP PEE PLB EL CREE RARE ALE "ete COO ee SS RR AE ORO aoa ooo oan OL RARE RAE E A BDL be pete BAA pe Pe bt ee - SOS Oe ———— . . = Se en A AR A on ’ FTP LTEP TP APTI ge EEE OI ISS I a ’ > aA ~ SSO A AN A ARR AREA AAR ARRAS PAA Oe OSC CARER LOIS SSIS SSAA ST SS Sep cat tad dest tt tag tee Dn Dp Sn De fem bum mtn SOS LEKRS AFI AAS Pett ATCT tae. a SS ater tntntininn ane : On ecieterinciennlnrincnindnsintm oo ren — — PET ee ee EOI ITF . LEE ET IO ee eo TEP LAS . ~~ AA ~AAAAAAA Cea A A A DAA RRMA ALAA A A ee ee ORO REF RRERREEA A AR DP PP De PP PP PD ke PL PL EN o> m KEN RK KR RAAAA OS OA AAO hte teh Date De Patten APE 7 : RRL RRA hata tebe Ra hh hope Dobro bob LL DM POEL ALE ——_ re Ratatat telat ta tata ect tee a at ee a eee Ee ene ena aa ana a TTS « re " Spa A TN PIE EP eT DTT LOE OO OT ee ee Tee a ° . + ~ AAA Cea AR AR AAAASAAARAASM . RAPA AAAS. SOL KR REKRFR FP AS Pe PPP DL LPP PPL LE ELIS. “*s A SON. Nn ae a tat hath tee Ate Pate Mata ne a SEK PDAS PAA I IL A RI DA DP DD pte bb pe bP aad ae a a a I ie SS ae as SOeGROSarSrere= eee Re EE ee eee an, SO rn EO I Ce OTRO OO , . " ~~ * ~ es AA OR ee A RRA RA A I ee “ . > OPC EERE OL LIGHT IMLS IIIS SIDS SS ee PEE STO I REIS - -"s COO ee eS ee eee eRe TLE Tt ttt vatetatetetetas states eee 7 C SSOP OEP O LEIS TS SSS SAS MSA MAA SEI SSL —s : : PPP cacitintindnting inne aint AAA ee a ag a : - nent EOE E TTT a es eee TOES “ , x ; c OPEL LLL FL IL IIIS I SII SS SIS IISA ASP A IT GG ee % < a * POOL P LAE EAP EABAAL EDAD SD tod = “ EE « ae ee ree SR OOK an : OE LLLP LEELA LEDER EABB EBB Pore LTS x c "Sere ery . 5 ‘ ws POP EPERL EL EEAE DAL OE hadbed toe - > es OLA ve a Se citar ater egie te aa a A a nn A eS nN SS Ct a ne ee i EE es ee = . << ° mene o NID ee a ee ee A re I ALP Ee tee O Eat ee —- ey, - - > a _ AF >a eo A* oF FS AAA SL RS RFI PP PP EPP OD PL DS ORNL LL EE EEL AS PPP SD DDD nD PL tL Bo Le AA PP a ad a2 ’ , R é - PELL RA RR E ADA Panton Dog Papp te Photon Pt ee ee ee ee EPR E Ad he D CLEA EEEE A EES PL 4 es it ALLL AL LOA LAR AIS , — —- eX i —— — . oe y y oe - ica ee a a OT a aerials nctinns - - éocimesion - ~- a : | s . 4 — . wn oe sbecaatinttateseire EAELEL_LALAD ne ee eee eae Se ee et ee Pe ee ee os ae » 0 ol pre oe = ae 7 - or = y —— ee K ‘ < ieee ~ aa ve et ee © - —- 170 —————— men Lie 4 : Bde tek =, it - es nie ne: 2 wy eh eyerey a . ; = “oe ees y es . Fath ee i ore. it a = aie patie Rie Moe re e= ‘ 1 Ot me SP os a! ox. >, om 94 . & ek Ne . 2 i ie — _— 4 SYP yee ries Fa) Toy aNd aa Oat Vie, aerate ee ne jie , ‘ ° \ . < in 4s « id /. Ages - ¥ “) e ary ‘ f es 7 | ’ . » = ‘e . * «= » 7) - + i Vo a es Cambridge: PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. THE BRITISH RUBI: AN ATTEMPT TO DISCRIMINATE THE SPECIES OF RUBUS KNOWN TO INHABIT THE BRITISH ISLES. BY CHARLES CARDALE ABINGTON , M.A. ERS. PROFESSOR OF BOTANY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE. London: JOHN VAN VOORST, PATERNOSTER ROW. 18609. ; - to E ; yet c « j ee v/ Ng , i a4 = ' x i‘. | : ‘ 3 LIT HG . ¢ 7 | | | | | Var ft a MOREE RIOR rie g . NOTICE. IT was intended that a series of Quarto Plates should accompany this Essay. But as after much unavoidable delay it is still impossible for them to be very soon ready for publication, the Author has thought it unadvisable to defer the issue of the descrip- tion and remarks upon the species. He hopes on a future occasion to publish the plates as a distinct work. The AUTHOR desires to express his grateful acknow- ledgments to the SYNDICS OF THE UNIVERSITY PREsS for their liberality in granting him the expense of the Printing and Paper of this Volume. Species Ruborum [Britannicas] diligenter examinare et descrip- tionibus, quoad fieri potuerit, perfectis illustrare conati sumus, memores verborum Linnei ‘ne varietas loco speciei sumatur, ubique cavendum est.” ArrH. Monog. 58. PREFACE. Havine acquired, chiefly through the kindness of different botanists, but partly by purchase, what is probably by far the most extensive collection of Brambles which has ever been formed in this country, I have thought it well to draw up such an account of them as these opportunities, and a tolerably long-continued study of Rubi, has enabled me to prepare. My collection contains nearly all Leighton’s Rubi, including the specimens submitted by him to the examination of Nees von Esenbech, Borrer, and Lindley, and named and commented upon by them ; a very complete set of Bloxam’s specimens, and also of those of Bell Salter and Lees. I have many specimens named by Borrer, Coleman, Hort, and other students of this difficult genus ; have myself collected Brambles extensively in various parts of the kingdom, and have had many species long in cultivation in the Cambridge Botanic Garden. This account of the collection will shew that the opportunities within my reach are such as to render it probable that at least some valuable results may be attained by its study. Unfortunately there is great diffi- culty in obtaining authentic specimens of such unwieldy a3 V1 PREFACE. plants from continental botanists, nevertheless my Herbarium does contain a considerable number of them. Reichenbach’s Flora exsiccata supplies a few, Fries’s invaluable Herbarium normale others, Wirtgen’s Herbarium Ruborum Rhenanorum a considerable number ; the Abbe Questier has given to me a very extensive series of the French species, and I possess others obtained from Dr F. Schultz and Professor C. Billot. Unfortunately no botanist in Britain is known to have typical specimens of the plants figured in the Rubi Ger- manici, of those described by Godron in the Flore de France, or by Boreau in his Flore du centre de la France. A few also of those included in Arrhenius’s valuable Monographia Ruborum Suecie are unknown to me, although several which I did not before possess have been kindly sent by Mr Joh. Lange of Copenhagen. It is believed that the following essay will afford the means of determining many, perhaps most, of our species : but it is only by careful and long-continued study that any person can expect to attain a correct knowledge of such difficult plants. My hope is that the readers of this book will endeavour to correct the mistakes into which I am sure to have fallen; for with the utmost care, and I may venture to add that no care has been neglected, I cannot avoid feeling convinced that the truth has only been approached, and that perhaps rather distantly in some cases. Several botanists of the highest eminence both in this country and upon the European continent have thought that all our brambles are infinitely varying hybrids or forms of PREFACE. Vil one, two, or as some think four species. Such an opinion is the natural result of an examination of a few specimens, perhaps not very perfect, preserved in an Herbarium. But if much study of the plants in their native places of growth is combined with that of an extensive series of preserved specimens of each form, it does seem to me that nature pos- sesses many more species than those distinguished men are prepared to admit. It is quite likely that the time may come when several of the forms here looked upon as species will be shewn not to be distinct from others. The many blunders which have been made by myself and other students of this difficult genus would make it very presumptuous in me to think otherwise. Dr Godron in his valuable essay Le genre Rubus considéré aw point de vue de Pespece, (Mém. de la Société R. de Nancy, 1849, p. 210), has shewn con- clusively that we cannot reduce all the European Rubi to the species described by Linnzeus, and proved that there are real and constant characters by which to distinguish as true species many more than were known to the great Swedish botanist. As a contrast to the idea that the number of species is small, it may be mentioned that a German botanist, (P. J. Miiller) has published (16 and 17 Jahresberichte der Polli- chia) descriptions of what are supposed by him to be 236 species of Rubi inhabiting France and Germany. I believe these to be descriptions of mere forms. They might have been of considerable value had their author more frequently identified his plants with those of other botanists, or pointed out their distinctions from them: also, if he had given Vill PREFACE. specific characters or even a synoptical table of his plants. Without either of these helps it is exceedingly difficult to identify them. Fortunately specimens of a considerable number of them are published in Wirtgen’s excellent Herb. Ruborum Rhenanorum, and many others are contained in Mr J. G. Baker’s extensive Herbarium, which he most kindly placed for a lengthened period in my hands. CAMBRIDGE, May 1, 1869. _ Ee eietihie a Josie bap bag Fe peree (E: et 12 Aika ae MSE gL OL" BLILOL 6 og uy aed eps see cee tee cee tee see Qa es DEES een en BS ce Br bree ac asso 0€ 86 . oar tiene Ste OL ee hy a aes: ST GL IT OT 6 8 aie AE Fe ‘ Sari ogpott ZI ae idee) “a ‘ ee es ce ot}; : tt tre tes eee oes ee es OF OT“ OT EL ILOL 6 ee Ooo eh Scone os oe cr OL GL FLL &L OL 6 0€ :. SE Bieta ee ee OT SL PL ST GL IT OT 6 og | seh ees soto OF GT OL BL TL OL 6 08 apy 9g °° see gp ccs OL SLFL&L Zt OL” emcees “pis cep =e eRe imine weet ene tone vee ap ocee nes O€ 66 83 LZ 9G GZ FZ SZ GZ 13 OZ GT SL’ OT ST FL ST ZI TT OT 6 O€ 66 83 LZ 9B GB FZ EB GSB 1G OZ GT ST AT YT ST FT ST SI IT OT 6 aE do ae Gea ePEOQP’s 2 FE AS Fe cc ay E wa oO : oO a¢ & OO n Oo + 7 ea ae or ti fap) RET PPR RSET epee eae gg eS oF BEuamg i “SBF EREE 2 g © Pee BAa & s BREEB SE m fe. . fo) . ® B =) Qu fo) Qu e F BEDE & Be 2 b a: ae *WDDDDO DD . . Pe ole ov oe oe oe 0) . ‘4U0Ty, © : ‘SOTUM ON &~ & ek Ie eee 9 ¢ Sys a: 9 ¢ fee 9 ¢ “g ee — a 9 ¢ 9 ¢ 9 ¢ thee Q 9 ¢ 9 ¢ RM mM sa | 4s PE Ei “ee snipoyrurdavo poe "* Traqpeg soho Forte te seeeee eeegMTaTOD "8" TTYSMOQBIN) T **' sdqovysoonoy snopros1Ayy loc “+++ JOTOOSTP See ae Ne eee i uLesweuh SnqpoyTyey otasa. aa Saeibaane uneaas snqvortquat ae “ts seers snaBAMOUL T “*' Sntpoyraurey.t sea SnUBIOTPUL'T laxioverana * srayye eee eecees . snyvorpd acai Hoes snssiy snyooroqns Trse0'T Ae, ae ‘or Sneepy eee eee fee wee see eee of i Ss oe oe ee ‘snany euUUIVAD AN A ‘SOUlBy, om ‘BInSUIMeg *SHONIAOUG SHIOUdS WHHL HO NOILAAIYLSIG TVOIHAVaN0Np BNHHOSK OS 0€ & . eee $5 sp Se . wee we ee "© s+ ee ee . owe . . + tee wee eee eee - - Fee gp ee pp gg te St FT GI TT OF eh Bas ’ 6T 8T ee fee iS ihe =e "OT ST FL &T GT TT OT C.6L- - fh. AF St Ok * ~ OF OF — ae OLR OF oS Gr Spr i> GE > OF ieee ee ee ee ey at ST GT IT OT | Hees eee ee re OT ST’ ST SL IT OT Pe OL” Lobe Ok mA &1 GT TT OT _ OT “TL OL’ a al dl :> OD OD OD OD OD > 6 2 oN . . - . 7 OD OD [Oo =O - £ LD 1D 1D 19 19 10 1D 19 16 16 19 19 19 19 19 19 190 - Se oe ee a Me Ro Me Bo Sete esse 269 «3 6 6D 6D 6D oD Cf oD DODDDDD :-DDDDO om oD UD UD 2 UD 1D 10 10 aN see wee “‘SRIOUIVUIVITLD . ° ST[TFBVXBS ee eceseccees SsuIs@od ‘ “= snTTOFTATATR seeeee sntpoytpA.09 . “"* SNUBLMOTV * ot aha snsojupury[s “teres BNSOTTOT “es snenymmiy * * WoTqyaNy 7 tio stjeprurerdd * seooseeess rremofory “sTpMa * eae taaaienis ‘ rOqRos * tee weeeee sneusid . pages “"* sneodUsor tte ee eeneee xiysAPy . Heese TUUNXOTE, * tee eeeee trpasuerdg “* sngepnuoonUL * “* snjAqdosovur * eeraetere STPNBOT[TA “6T ih ested on CONTENTS. Historica SKETCH Introduction . Books quoted Synopsis of Groups I. Rubi frutescentes Subsec. 1.—Idei Subsec. 2.—Fruticosi Group 1.—Suberecti Group 2.—Rhamnifolii . Group 3.—Villicaules Group 4.—Glandulosi Group 5.—Cesii II. R. Herbacei Subsec. 1.—Saxatiles Subsec. 2.—Arctici 198 254 294 294 297 HISTORICAL SKETCH. A sHorT account of the progress made in the study of the fruticose Brambles by English botanists will probably possess some interest. We may commence with our great naturalist Ray. In his earliest work, Catalogus Plantarum circa Cantabrigiam nascentium (1660), he records two species (1) B. minor fructu ceruleo |. cesius Linn.], and (2) Rubus [2. discolor W. and N.]; in his Catalogus Plantarum An- glie (1670) four are recorded, viz. the same two, and &, Ideus, and &. alpinus humilis [R. saxatilis Linn.]; in the Synopsis Methodica (1690) he separates 2. saxatilis from the other species because of its being herbaceous, placing it in the same group with 2. Chamemorus, thus leaving three fruticose species. To these headded in the 3rd edition of the Synopsis (1724) a white-fruited plant found near Oxford by Bobart, which cannot have been more than a chance variety of some species, and is not now capable of determination. It may very probably have belonged to 2. thyrsoideus (R. fruticosus W. and N.); for there is a variety of that plant named “leucocarpus, carpellis albis” recorded by Seringe in De Candolle’s Prodromus (ii. 561). He seems therefore not to have distinguished more than three real species. It is 1 2 HISTORICAL SKETCH. curious, as will be seen below, that an eminent botanist, publishing in 1858, returns to the precise view of the sub- ject entertained in 1690 by Ray. Dillenius in his edition of Ray’s Synopsis (1724) added a plant from Doody’s manu- scripts, and supposed that there was another allied to No. 2, which I have above supposed to be R. discolor. Owing to the short and incomplete descriptions of the earlier botanists it is very difficult to determine their plants. The next work which is deserving of notice is Hudson’s Flora Anglica, of which neither edition (1762 and 1778) contains more than the same species, namely, A. Jdeus, hh. fruticosus (Rk. discolor) and &. cesius: nor do we find any addition to them before the publication of Smith’s Flora Britannica (1800), where &. corylifolius* first appears ; for Smith’s quotation under it of Withering’s Botanical Arrangement (ed. 3, 1796) is of very doubtful correctness. Jt seems to me that Withering, and those who preceded him, had no clear views concerning the plants, and that more than one species (probably several, as we now understand them), were confounded under the name of &. fruticosus, and even under its supposed variety &. .fruticosus major. We should not, however, forget that Mr W. Hall. had published, in 1794, his &. nessensis in the T'ransactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (Vol. iii.). Smith seems to have been altogether ignorant of this fact; for even in his 1 When Smith proposed to add R. corylifolius to the then meagre list of English Rubi it was considered as a great innovation. Dalton, a botanist of eminence in his day, wrote to Winch, Oct. 26, 1804, as follows: ‘‘I have long been an unbeliever with regard to Rubus cory- lifolius. Brunton says that he knows the plant and believes it a good species. I will talk with him on the subject and procure you a speci- men from him. I have it not.” Winch’s Correspondence (Lin. Soc. Lond.). HISTORICAL SKETCH. 3 English Flora he quotes Hall’s paper as one with which he had no personal acquaintance. In the year 1815 Mr George Anderson gave in the Linnean Transactions a full description of what is usually supposed to have been Hall’s plant under the far better name of 2. suberectus ; properly taking advantage of the fact that its first publisher fur- nished a very insufficient account of it, to replace the original name by one which avoids the great objection of being derived from that of a locality of very limited extent. Remarks upon Hall’s plant will be found under R#. swberectus in this book. Before the appearance of the second volume of Smith’s English Flora (1824) only a portion of the great work of Weihe and Nees von Esenbech on the German Rubi had been published, and Sir James expressed his grief that he was thus prevented from availing himself to a greater extent of the labours of those celebrated botanists, In the L’nglish Flora Smith describes eleven fruticose species; a great in- crease from the four recognised in his Flora Britannica. These plants are (1) R. fruticosus, which we now call R. discolor; (2) R. plicatus; (3) R. rhamnifolius, which in- cludes the &. cordifolius of Weihe and Nees; (4) R. leuco- stachys ; (5) R. glandulosus, now shown to be typically the f. Koehleri of Weihe, although it probably included some other glandular brambles; (6) 2. nitidus, which Borrer states in the Supplement to English Botany (fol. 2714) to be the R. plicatus of the Rubi Germanici, at the same time inform- ing us that “ The specimens from Dr Williams, described in the English Flora as R. plicatus, bear a close resemblance to Rk. rhamnifolius, and probably belong to it ;” (7) 2. affinis, which Borrer and the late Mr Edw. Forster (Suppl. to ng. Bot. f. 2605) unhesitatingly refer to FR. pallidus of 4 HISTORICAL SKETCH. Weihe; (8) 2. suberectus; (9) R. Ideus; (10) R. corylifo- lius; and (11) FR. cesius. We now turn to Lindley’s Synopsis of the Britis. Flora, ed. 1 (1829), where there are twenty-four species enumerated and shortly characterized in accordance with the “truly excellent Monograph of the German Rubi by Drs Weihe and Nees.” I shall not here enter upon a discussion of these plants, for they will be found noticed under the respective species to which they are considered as referrible, but simply state that three supposed new species are re- corded, viz. &. abruptus, now known to be a state of R. discolor; . diversifolius, concerning which much discus- sion has arisen, either from some mistake in the naming of specimens or from the displacement of a label in the garden of the Horticultural Society’; and R. echinatus, a plant apparently ranging under &. Koehlert. In the second edition of the Synopsis (1835), Lindley quite altered his views concerning brambles; for, although he still gives short characters for eighteen plants, he states that “if it had been possible to prove the four species [2. suberectus, fruti- cosus, corylifolius and cesius| to be themselves physiologi- cally distinct,” he would have then “reduced all the others” to them; but as proof even of that seemed to him to be wanting, he adopted a middle course, and grouped the species of his former edition into sections as Jdaxi, Suberecti, Corylifolii, Cesii, and Fruticost. He also made some alterations in the nomenclature by calling his former £. fastigiatus = R. fissus, his R. echinatus= kh. rudis, his R&R. pallidus = R. Koehleri, and reducing a few of the other 1 If specimens are to be believed this is a distinct species closely allied to R. fuscoater ; but if the bush in the garden is the authority (although repudiated by Lindley) then it is R. leucostachys. HISTORICAL SKETCH. +) supposed species to the position of synonyms. In what is called a third edition of the Synopsis there is no altera- tion. A most valuable account of the Brambles, from the pen of Mr Borrer, was published in the second (1831) and third (1835) editions of Hooker’s British Flora. This must be considered as the groundwork upon which a real know- ledge of our native species is founded, and I have derived very great advantage from its study. In the fourth and fifth editions of the British Flora only a very short abstract of Mr Borrer’s “copious observations” will be found; in the sixth and seventh they are altogether neglected, and a note is inserted stating that the authors (for then Dr Walker-Arnott was associated with Sir W. J. Hooker in the authorship of the book) are “ Almost quite convinced ...that the characters...are not permanent,” and that the re- puted species are not “ physiologically distinct, all passing into each other without any fixed assignable limit ;” and, “from a consideration of what is requisite to constitute a difference between the other European species of Rubus, that all of the present section [the Yruticosi] are mere va- rieties approaching on the one side the A. /deus, on the other to &. saxatilis, with both of which many fertile and permanent hybrids may have been formed, and are still forming” (Brit. Fl. ed. 6, p. 120; ed. 7, p. 122). This view had previously been carried out to its legitimate conclusion by Spenner in his Ylora Friburgensis (1829), where, under the name of &. polymorphus, all our Rubi Fruticosi are combined. Spenner says nothing about hybrids, but places what he believes to be one variable species in the same rank with &. Zdeus and R. saxatilis. It seems probable that this was the view also taken by Messrs Hooker and Ar- 1—3 6 HISTORICAL SKETCH. nott: for I cannot suppose that they believed the plants to be hybrids between 2. Jdeus and Lf. saxatilis. It is admit- ted by zoologists that hybrids are of exceedingly rare oc- currence when animals are left to their natural instincts, although they are not unfrequent between domesticated species: also, that it is in the highest degree doubtful if a really hybrid race exists even in domestication. Is it likely that less care would be taken to keep the species of plants free from intermixture than is believed to have been exer- cised in the animal kingdom? Certainly a few fertile hy- brids have been obtained artificially, but all the experiments, accounts of which have fallen in my way, tend to show that even if isolated they revert to one or other of the pa- rent species in a few generations. As Fries has more than once remarked, to affix the stigma of hybridity is a conve- nient mode of escape from many difficulties, but it is not therefore the more likely to be just. “Ad hybriditatum voluptas trahit omnes, (1) qui de specierum limitibus dubii rem absolutam fingunt: ‘videtur hybrida planta;’ (2) qui omnes recentius distinctas species ex arbitrio delere student: ‘est hybrida forsan planta;’ (3) quibus pravas ut species tueantur, necesse est manifestos transitus ‘pro hybridis for- nis’ declarare. At cum hybridas suas species haud limitare valent, ulterius hybriditates hybriditatum tertii, ¢. s. p. gra- dus urgent” (Fries Symbole ad Historiam Hieraciarum, p.xxxi.). In the eighth edition of the British Flora, the authors state their belief that the British fruticose species ‘might be advantageously reduced to five...which five would then accord with the four sections into which Mr Babington has now divided the group.” In the above-mentioned editions (2nd and 3rd) of Hooker's British Flora, Borrer adds only two to the species HISTORICAL SKETCH, 7 already recognized by Smith, although the names of several are corrected, and the characters very much improved ; they are Lt, carpinifolius (which is not that so named by the German authors, but seems to be very closely allied to Rh. Grabowski), and Rk. macrophyllus. In 1837 Professor David Don drew up a very concise account of these plants for Dr Macreight’s Manual ef British Botany. In 1841 Leighton published his Flora of Shropshire, in which he endeavoured to determine the plants of Nees von Esenbech, Lindley, and Borrer, by transmitting specimens of the Shropshire Brambles to each of them, and obtaining in return their remarks upon the plants. The results are not as satisfactory as might have been expected; for the opinions received are very contradictory, and appear some- times, especially in the case of the first-named author, not to accord with the descriptions previously published. In 1848 Leighton made a series of most valuable remarks upon some of the same plants in the third volume of the Phytolo- gist. Unfortunately his intention of sending further papers on the subject was not fulfilled. In 1847 Mr Edwin Lees communicated the specific cha- racters of the species, as known to him, to Steele’s Handbook of Field Botany ; and more recently described many of them in his own Botany of Malvern, ed. 2 (1852). Dr Thomas Bell Salter inserted valuable remarks upon these plants in the Annals of Natural History (Ser. 1. xv. and xvi. in 1845), and in the Phytologist (ii.). He gave a complete synopsis of his views in the Botanical Gazette (ii. in 1850), and repeated it, with little or no alteration, in _ Hooker and Arnott’s British Flora (ed. 6. in 1850), and Promfield’s Ylora Vectensis (1856), 8 HISTORICAL SKETCH. — In 1846 the author of this book published in the Annals of Natural History (Ser. 1. xvii.), and also in a separate form, a Synopsis of British Rubi, adding in the same journal supplements to it in 1847 (Ser. 1. xix.), 1848 (Ser. 2. ii.) and 1852 (Ser. 2. xx.), and has given the charac- ters of all the species supposed to inhabit Britain in the successive editions of his Manual of British Botany (1843, 47, 51, 56, 62, and 67). In 1850 the Rev. Andrew Bloxam supplied to Miss Kirby’s Flora of Leicestershire a very excellent account of the species which he had ascertained to grow in that county. In 1851 the Rev. F. J. A. Hort published a new species (2. embricatus) in the Annals of Natural History (Ser. 2. vii. 374). In 1853 Dr George Johnston included several brambles in his elegant Botany of the Eastern Borders, and mentions the curious fact that the vicar of Norham received tithes of Blackberries (Rubi majores) in the year 1364 (Raine’s North Durham, 278). In 1858 Mr Bentham published his Handbook of the British Flora, wherein he reduces our Rubi Fruticosi to three, viz. k. [deus, Rk. fruticosus, and FR. cesius; thus in- cluding all of them, except 2. Jdeus (which comprises f. Leesti), under two species. He states it to be bis opinion that the supposed series, even when thus restricted, will “very frequently be found to pass imperceptibly into each other.” Had not the plan of his whole work been founded ‘upon a similar principle, this might have been considered an easy way of appearing to escape from a difficulty. Mr Irvine included the Rubi in his Jllustrated Hand- book in 1858, and states in the Preface that they are de- scribed “in conformity generally with Mr Babington’s views.” HISTORICAL SKETCH. 9 Unfortunately I must decline being considered as at all answerable for most of the statements there made. Two species are characterized for the first time in Britain in my Flora of Cambridgeshire (1860), viz. R. alther- folius and R. tuberculatus. Mr Syme in the “new edition” of English Botany has followed my arrangement, calling my species sub-species. Only some of the plants thus ranked as sub-species are represented on the plates, most of those remaining without figures which have not been published in the original Lng- lish Botany or its Supplement. Unfortunately the want of attention to the colour and clothing of the leaves which exist in the originals of these plates has not been supplied in this new work. In 1867 Mr Lees published his Botany of Worcestershire, at the end of which he has given his latest views upon the species of Rwbi. In many respects these accord with my ideas, but in some cases his nomenclature is different, and in others the plants which he had in view are apparently not always the same as mine. It is believed that this is a tolerably complete account of the progressive study of British Brambles. No attempt is made to treat the writings of continental botanists in a similar manner, but I may name those authors whose works have been of the most use to me in my researches. They are Arrhenius, by his Monographia Ruborum Suecie (1840), and his notes inserted in Fries’s Mantissa tertia (1842) and Summa Vegetabilium Scandinavie (1846); Bluff and Fin- gerhuth, in the Compendium Flore Germanice, ed. 1 (1825) and ed. 2 (1837); Petermann, in his Plora Lipsiensis (1838); Godron, in his Flore de Lorraine, ed. 1 (1843), ed. 2 (1857), the Flore de France (1848), and his Monograpjie des Rubus 10 HISTORICAL SKETCH. de Nancy (1843); and the following works are especially deserving of notice, viz. the Rubi Germanici of Weihe and Nees v. Exenbech (1822—27); the Flore du centre de la France, by Professor Boreau, edition 3 (1857); a valuable paper by Dr Metsch entitled Rubs Hennebergenses, which will be found in the Linnea (xxvii. p. 89), published in 1858, although dated 1856 on the title-page; and Garcke’s Flora von Nord- und Mittel-Deutschland, ed. 7 (1865). An interesting history of the study of this genus on the continent will be found in Godron’s paper entitled Le genus Rubus considéré au point de vue de Tespéce. It is included in the Jlémoires de la Société des Sciences de Nancy (1849, p. 210), and contains some exceedingly good remarks upon the distinctness of species in opposition to those botanists who with Gmelin and Bentham only recognize the Linnean species, or with Spenner admit only one fruticose Rubus into the flora of Europe. He shows that neither climate, soil, nor variations of light and shade, nor even cultivation, will produce those changes in the form and direction of the stem, the shape and texture of the leaves, the outline and structure of the panicle, the shape of the petals, and the kind of fruit, which are requisite if the theory of the authors just mentioned is adopted. An essay entitled De [étude specifique du genre Rubus (Congrés Scien- tifique de France, 28 Session, t. iii.) by the Abbe Chaboisseau, is a. valuable contribution to the literature of this subject. I may also refer to the Essays of M. Genevier contained in the Mém. Soc. Acad. d’ Anger (vols. viii. and x.), and the Rubi Genevenses of Dr Mercier attached to Reuter’s Flore de Geneve. il INTRODUCTION. In the study of Rubi it is requisite to take into con- sideration the habit of the plant, as well as the form and structure of most of its parts. A want of information in the first of these respects renders it most difficult and often impossible to refer dried specimens to their true species with certainty’. All the fruticose species throw out long leafy shoots directly from their roots which do not produce any flowers during the first year. The Jdei are sometimes exceptions, for their canes (as the gardeners call them) do sometimes flower at the end in the first autumn. The barren stems, as they are usually called, all rise slightly from the ground at the commencement of their growth, but afterwards take different directions which are characteristic of the several species. They are either (i) swherect, that is, nearly upright throughout the greater part of their length but nodding slightly at their slender tops; or (ii) evect-arcuate, when they are nearly as erect as in the suberect species, but terminate often in a kind of knot consisting of a number of closely placed leaves and usually numerous prickles, from which in the autumn one or more slender shoots descend directly to the ground, where they take root. The other ? Caulis in multis plantis ita essenciales prebet differentias, ut eo demto, nulla certitudo speciei. Linn. Philos. Bot. § 276, ed. 2, p. 218. 12 INTRODUCTION. species form an arch of more or less height and extent, but when the shoot again arrives at the ground (if early enough in the season) it is prostrate for some distance, and in the autumn again rises at the end into a very low and small arch so as to present its poimt directly toward the earth, which it penetrates slightly and takes root. It is convenient to divide these plants into such as are (ill) arcuate, that is form a large and lofty arch the end of which often does not reach the earth until late in the autumn, when its point immediately pushes itself into the ground and takes root; and the (iv) arcuate-prostrate, whose stems, when unsupported, form a very slight and inconspicuous arch, but lie, through- out the greater part of their length, quite close to the ground, often following all the slight inequalities of its surface. The observation of these differences is rendered difficult by the stems being supported by bushes or even by other parts of the plant itself and not reaching the ground, as they would have done if without support. We often see R&. discolor, which is an arcuate-prostrate plant, rising out of the tops of lofty hedges, and sometimes rendered unable to reach the ground before its growth is stopped by the winter. When thus circumstanced it lies upon the top of -the hedge in precisely the same manner as it would have done upon the ground if not artificially raised. When so pre- vented from taking its more natural position it frequently forms a knot similar to that of the erect-arcuate plants, and tries by throwing out a slender autumnal shoot to arrive at the earth; or extends its growth from the same point during the succeeding summer, frequently, if the thicket is dense, with a like failure: but where such supports are wanting, its stem will be found to form an arch of only a few inches in height, after which it extends INTRODUCTION. 13 to a great length close to the ground, until the final small autumnal arch is produced by means of which the growing point is enabled to bury itself. On the other hand, its ally Rh. thyrsoideus forms a lofty arch even when totally without other support than its own strength, and generally takes root as soon as the end arrives at the soil, never running far along the surface. The stem is round or has five bluntish angles, between which the faces, although often furrowed, are usually nearly flat. Sometimes the lower part is round and the upper angular. The colour of the stem, as is well remarked by Arrhenius (p. 9), is variable according to the place where the plant grows. In shade it is green or greenish, in spots where it is fully exposed to the light of the sun it usually becomes more or less red or purple, and often acquires a very dark tint of the latter colour; but some species seem to have a greater tendency to assume the dark tint than is possessed by others. The prickles are uniform in shape and direction throughout the stem; or the lower ones are straight and slender, but the rest much stronger, and either patent (that is, at right angles to the stem) or deflexed or declining (when they are straight, but directed downwards). In some spe- cies they are all of nearly equal size and placed chiefly or wholly upon the angles of the stem; in others they are very variable in size and scattered over the faces as well as the angles. In the latter case there is usually a very gradual decrease in their size, so that the smallest prickles are not distinguishable from the slender rigid bristles called acicwli. The aciculi again decrease in strength, and each becomes tipped with a gland, when they take the name of sete’, The term seta is usually applied by botanists to a strong bristle, but English writers upon the genera Rubus, Rosa and Hieracium confine 2 14 INTRODUCTION. The faces of the stem are often furnished with many nearly sessile glands in some of those species which usually have neither sete nor aciculi. Some stems are quite hairless; but others are more or less thickly covered with hairs, which are either solitary and patent, or two or three spring from the same spot and diverge so as, if numerous, to interlace with those of the neighbouring clusters. In some cases there is more or less fine down, formed of clustered but very small hairs spreading close to the surface of the stem; this is called felt, tomentum, or stellate-pubescence. The stem of a few spe- cies is covered with a kind of bloom (is pruinose), especially when young. The faces of the stem in the groups called _ Suberecti, Rhamnifolii and Villicaules, are usually marked with parallel longitudinal lines and have a dull appearance; but a few plants (2. Lindletanus for example) have shining faces to their stems. The leaves are either pinnate with seven leaflets, of which four spring from the same spot in opposite pairs, but the upper three (also seated at one spot) are separated from them by a considerable space; or, the upper three consist of an opposite pair similarly separated from the lower four, but the terminal leaflet is again raised above them by a short stalk; both of these combinations are called septenate-pinnate leaves: or, (in 2. Jdeus) five leaflets are arranged in an impari-pinnate manner: or, the leaf consists of three or five leaflets, all springing from the same place, of which the lower are stalked or sessile, but the terminal is always stalked; these are the quinate leaves: or, the two lower are it (in describing those plants) to the longish gland-tipped hairs. Some confusion is caused by this latter use of the term, but, in the want of a special name for those organs, it is probably better to retain its use than to employ the circumlocution of gland-tipped hairs; for descriptions are thereby much shortened and facilitated. INTRODUCTION. 15 placed severally upon the stalks of the two intermediate leaflets, when the leaf is pedate. The septenate-pinnate leaf is always distinguishable from that which is truly pinnate by the four lower leaflets being, as is already remarked, inserted at the same spot, and also by the unequal bases of the upper pair, which are very irregularly combined with or separated from the terminal leaflet. Thus the septenate-pinnate leaf is nothing more than an anomalous state of the quinate leaf. Nevertheless it is very rarely found except in three or four of the species. Similarly the pedate is perhaps to be con- sidered as a state of the ternate leaf: for it appears to be tolerably certain that the ternate and pedate leaves are interchangeable in the same species, or even individual bramble, The true quinate leaf is always digitate, and its leaflets are also always distinct from each other, although the lower or outer pair are sometimes sessile. The upper surface of the leaflets is usually rather darker in colour than the under side; it is either quite naked, or has a few hairs scattered over it or arranged along the grooves which correspond with the ribs and stronger veins of the underside. The under side is either green, and naked with the exception of more or less dense rows of hairs placed upon the ribs and stronger veins, or even also upon the finer veins; or the surface between the veins, and often the veins themselves, is covered with white or whitish felt (tomentum), which is sometimes very fine, but often forms rather a thick and dense coat quite hiding the cuticle. The midribs of the leaflets, and the partial and general petioles, are armed on the under side with prickles taking generally the form of hooks. In describing the leaflets, unless the contrary is ex- pressed, the terminal one alone is noticed; it is usually more or less obovate, often cordate at the base, and frequently 16 INTRODUCTION. acuminate at the tip: but some leaflets are strongly cordate below, and some are abruptly cuspidate. The form, although speaking generally it may be called obovate, is sometimes so much and regularly narrowed below as to become almost wedgeshaped, or it may narrow so slightly as to be very nearly oval, or, in a few cases, the sides are so parallel and the two ends so truncate that the leaflet is almost square, with a central terminal cusp. Many intermediate forms are found to which attention should be paid. In some leaves the lower pair of leaflets partially overlaps the intermediate and, rarely, the latter overlap the terminal leaflet; or, the lower leaflets are directed backwards, toward the petiole, so as to leave a clear space between them and their neigh- bours. Those differences in the direction of the leaflets are usually constant and therefore deserving of attention; but in some species they are not wholly to be depended upon. It is often very difficult to determine what has been the direction of the leaflets after the specimen has been pressed in preparation for the herbarium. The whole leaf is convex, flat, or concave above, and the edges of the leaflets are either similarly curved or flat; or, the whole leaf may be flat and the edges of the leaflets may curve upwards or downwards so as to be concave or convex. The edges of the concave leaflet are usually wavy. The leaflets are sometimes simply and finely dentate or serrate or doubly so; or the double teeth are so large, especially in the upper half of the leaflet, as to resemble dentate or serrate lobes. These lobes are either directed towards the end of the leaf or their tops turn more or less from it: this seems to be a difference of some value, for there are cases in which individuals belonging to species which usually have well-marked lobed dentition have the lobes reduced to very broad but low double teeth, and INTRODUCTION. 17 then the middle secondary tooth of each of them usually shows a clear tendency to take the forward or the patent direction observable in the typical forms. The general and partial petioles are flat or furrowed on their upper side and rounded below. Their under sides are also furnished with more or less numerous prickles similar to, but usually rather larger than, those found on the under side of the midrib of the leaflets. In all the fruticose species the stipules are attached to the petiole at some little distance from its insertion; but herbaceous /ubi have their stipules attached to the stem itself, In this respect &. saxatilis seems to connect these great divisions, for the stipules of its barren stem are often on the petioles, whilst those of the flowering shoot spring from the stem itself. The flowering shoot grows from buds formed in the axils of the leaves of the barren stem of the preceding year; ex- cepting in some of the Herbacei, where the stem is repre- sented by a subterranean creeping rhizome, from which the flowering shoots rise at intervals. Therefore the only differ- ence consists in the fact that the Mruticosi have aérial, the Herbacet subterraneous stems. The scales which formed this bud are persistent, in a faded condition, at the base of the shoot: they vary in colour, and in their clothing, and may furnish characters of some value when carefully noticed. In the Jdewi and Suberecti the shoots spread in two directions (are distichous), but in the other /ruticosi they all turn to- wards the upper side of the stem. Their leaves are very similar to those of the stem, but much more frequently ter- nate; the lower are sometimes quinate; and the upper floral leaves are frequently simple. The panicles are of various forms; their branches are 2—3 18 INTRODUCTION. either racemose or corymbose, and they, as well as the pe- duncles, spread at different angles. Characters derived from them are not easily described, and therefore are of less value to the student than they seem really to be in nature. The rachis and peduncles, and often the whole of the flowering shoot, are usually furnished with sete (even in species the stems of which have no such organs), often have aciculi, many hairs, and frequently a thick coat of felt. The setz on these parts are sometimes shorter than the hairs (sunken), and may easily be overlooked when not pointed out by their peculiar colour. The sepals are usually clothed similarly to the peduncles; they differ considerably in shape and direc- tion when accompanying the fruit. They either end in a minute point, or a linear or flattened and leaflike append- age. In considering the characters derived from this ap- pendage, it is its presence, not absence, that is supposed to be of value. For those plants which usually possess the leaf- like point, often only produce it on the calyx of the primordial flower, which terminates the panicle, and even there it is not always to be found. This uncertainty renders it of much less use than, from its apparent value, it ought to possess. Arrhenius and Godron state that the petals furnish most valuable characters. It unfortunately happens that they have not received so much attention in England as it is pro- bable that they deserve. They are sometimes very broad so that their edges overlap; or may be so narrow as to be quite separate from each other, and to give a star-like ap- pearance to the flower: they are broad to the base, or wedge- shaped ; rounded at the end, or lanceolate; entire, or notched at the end; wavy at the edges, or throughout, or plain. In colour they are most frequently white, although often pink, or even sometimes reddish, INTRODUCTION. 19 The colour of the filaments and anthers and styles de- serves much more notice than we have given to it. It is apparently constant in tint, although very variable in in- tensity. The fruits are formed of many small drupes placed close together and usually cohering. They are seated upon a re- ceptacle, which is conical in all except the herbaceous spe- cies, and either falls with the fruit, or remains attached to the stalk after the fruit has separated from it, but amongst our species this latter condition exists in the Jdwi alone. I have not found that the seeds afford any characters of im- portance. As Arrhenius places confidence in their form, it is desirable that attention should be paid to them’. If a bramble is found to retain the same appearance under different circumstances of soil and exposure, although many of its characters vary considerably, we may conclude that it is a true species, and form some idea of its range of variation: but when a plant, although furnished with rather marked characters is confined to a single spot, we properly doubt its specific claims, although necessity may oblige us to allow it to stand alone, from not knowing with what other plants it should be combined. No study in herbaria can supply the knowledge requisite for a determination of the 1 The following very curious description of the fruit of Rubus is to be found in Linnei Amenitates Academice (viii. 170): ‘ Rubus, fructu suo singularis admodum est: Receptaculum enim seminum quasi duplici epidermide obducitur, intra quam succus et semina latent, adeoque decidit hee bacca concava instar pilei.” It is probably the description of the student (Sveno Anders Hedin, who defended it under the presi- dency of Linnzus on May 26, 1772, at Upsala), not of the Professor. Linnzus adopted the genus from Tournefort, who described the fruit correctly in his Jnstitutiones Rei Herlarie (ed, 8, 614. t. 385). 20 INTRODUCTION. range of variation in these plants. Unfortunately our information on this subject is rarely sufficient to give con- fidence to our determinations. The recorded geographical distribution of a species is often far from telling the whole truth : it may seem to show that a plant is confined to a single spot, or nearly so, and thus cause just doubts concerning its being a distinct species; whereas, in reality, it is so abun- dant in that place, and under such various circumstances, that its claim to be considered as a distinct species may be held to be well founded. For instance, 2. pyramidalis seems, by the geographical table, to have been found in three or four localities, separated by long distances, and would pro- bably have been considered as a doubtful species, had not its extreme abundance in the valley of Llanberis attracted especial attention to it, and shown that its limits of varia- tion are narrow, and that it presents a clearly distinct ap- pearance (facies), and also admits of an accurate definition. Some botanists have ventured to state that the seeds of Brambles do not readily germinate, that therefore we sel- dom see a seedling, and that thickets of these plants are almost wholly derived from the rooted ends of the stems. Careful observation has proved to me that the exact oppo- site is the fact, that the seeds germinate freely, and that seedlings are easily found in abundance by those who search for them in the proper places. Mr H. C. Watson informs me that Brambles are sown by the birds in his grounds at Thames Ditton, and that abundant seedlings appear, and have to be carefully re- moved; and that that is also the case in his hedges, which he has known from the time of their being planted more than thirty years since. During the whole of that time INTRODUCTION. 21 seedling Rubi have frequently sprung up here and there in the hedgerows, although they are never allowed to fruit, and the roots are removed every winter as completely as possible. More than forty of the supposed species have been raised from seeds in the Cambridge Botanic Garden, and the pro- duce has not varied in form or characters from the parent plants. The seeds were sown in the autumn, and the young plants usually appeared in the succeeding May or June. The seedlings have two little oval cotyledons, and produce a small cluster of simple leaves in the course of the first summer. In the second summer short slender shoots spring from the terminal bud and the axils of the leaves in the cluster and bear ternate or sometimes a few quinate leaves. In the third summer these shoots bear small pani- cles; and the root throws up the strong stems of adult plants, which, in the fourth summer, bear the perfect pani- cles proper to the species, Although most of the stems die down to their base after they have produced panicles, that is far from being constantly the case when the stem has not suc- ceeded in rooting at its end. It may continue to live for many years, throwing out secondary and tertiary stems, which bear panicles. But when it has rooted, only the lower part seems able to survive the succeeding winter, and the new plant formed at its end becomes detached. On the other hand, some persons fancy that the inclina- tion of these plants to produce fertile seeds is so strong as to result in abundant hybridity; and by that, combined with increase of the individual by offsets, they account for the many forms which are found in the genus. It is my belief that this latter view is also unfounded; and that the produc- tion of hybrids is as repugnant to Brambles as it is to most 22 INTRODUCTION. other plants. Those who adopt this view make no attempt at proof. As has been already remarked, the assumption of hybridity in difficult cases seems merely a mode of escape from, not the removal of, a difficulty. It is often nothing more than the concealment of ignorance under a bold exterior. I believe in the distinctness of species, although unable to demonstrate it. The great length of time requi- site for experimental proof, the only kind which could result in a real demonstration, renders the absolute determination of this problem nearly impossible. Perhaps the most extreme instance of the attempt to explain everything by hybridity will be found in the Reform Deutscher Brombeeren of Otto Kuntze (Leipzig, 1867), where all the recorded German bram- bles are reduced to f. fruticosus L. (= plicatus, affinis, and nitidus, of W. and N., and corylifolius of Hayne), &. candi- cans Weihe ( = fruticosus W. aud N., and thyrsoideus Wimm. in part), £. sanctus Schreber (= discolor, villicaulis, carpini- Solius, and Schlechtendalit of W. and N.), R. Ideus L., R. cesius L., Rk. Radula Weihe, Rk. hybridus (= pygmeus, glan- dulosus, Koehleri, Hystrix, humifusus, rosaceus, and a host of others), 2. saxatilis, and R. Chamcemorus. In addition there are 23 supposed hybrid plants: but in many cases the suppo- sition seems to me to be very rash, for in this country the sup- posed parents have not been observed growing in company. Dr Lejeune and also M. Alexis Jordan have cultivated brambles extensively and raised them from seeds. They find that the character of the species continues constant even after repeated sowings. The Abbé Chaboisseau justly remarks that it would require a century or more to be spent in experiments by cultivation from seed to attain to any certain result. He adds: ‘L’habitant des grandes villes, condamné a étudier beaucoup plus en herbier que sur le nature vivante, INTRODUCTION. 23 se fait de l’espéce une idée tout autre que lobservateur placé au milieu des champs. I] se forme de chaque espéce un type ideal plus au moins large, selon le nombre et les états des spécimens quwil a pu voir dans les _herbiers.” LD Etude specifique du genus Rubus. In the attempt that is made to point out the geographi- cal distribution of the species I have been obliged to trust chiefly to my own collection for information; for in the present uncertain state of the nomenclature of brambles it is not advisable to accept the names given even by the best botanists. The tables show. the presence of the several species in certain parts of the country; but do not, and cannot, point out their abundance or rarity in any place. This is an unfortunate circumstance, for, as has been already indicated, much depends upon it. In illustration: &. dis- color and FR. Radula are equally marked as natives of Prov. 11. Ouse and county of Cambridge. The former is exceedingly abundant; the latter has only been found in one place. It seems probable that one or more of the species constitutes the prevalent bramble, the Blackberry, of each district. 2. discolor, which is very common in many parts of the kingdom—so abundant as to attract notice almost exclusively to itself—is superseded by another kind in some places, where it may be and probably is present, but escapes general notice. L. diversifolius is so abundant in the valley of the Severn at and for a long distance above Shrewsbury, and Rk. pyramidalis and L. incurvatus at Llanberis, as to be noticed by any observant person; but &. discolor is not seen except by the botanist who is familiar with brambles. The eighteen Provinces into which Mr H. C. Watson divided Great Britain, and which are used in his Cybele 24 INTRODUCTION. Britannica, are here adopted with the same numerical arrangement as is employed by him. His 112 Counties and Vice-counties (Cyb. Brit. iii. 526—528) are also used. It has likewise seemed desirable to give such imperfect in- formation as has been obtained relative to the distribution of these plants in Ireland; I have therefore divided that country in a similar manner. This division of Ireland was first proposed in a communication read to the “Dublin Uni- versity Zoological and Botanical Association,” and published by that body in the original (Dublin) Natural History Review (vi. Pt. 2. 533), and in the Proceedings of the Association (i. 246); but as those works may not everywhere be easily accessible, a list of the Provinces and Counties or Vice-counties of Ireland is subjoined. The numbering is continuous from Mr Watson’s similar divisions (Cybele Britannica, iii, 526). PROVINCES, XIX. South Atlantic. XXV. Upper Shannon. XX. Blackwater. XXVI. North Atlantic. XXI. Barrow. XXVII. North Connaught. XXII. Leinster Coast. XXVIII. Erne. XXITL Liffey and Boyne. XXIX. Donegal. XXIV. Lower Shannon. XXX. Ulster Coast. COUNTIES AND VICE-COUNTIES. XIX. Sours ATLANTIC. XX. BLACKWATER. 113. South Kerry. 116. North Cork. 114, North Kerry. 117. Waterford. 115. South Cork. 118. South Tipperary. INTRODUCTION. 25 XXI. Barrow. 119. Kilkenny. 120. Carlow. 121. Queens. XXII. Leinster Coast. 122. Wexford. 123. Wicklow. XXIII. Lirrey & Boyne. 124. Kildare. 125. Dublin. 126. Meath. 127. Louth. XXIV. Lower SHANNON. 128. Limerick. 129. Clare. 130. East Galway. XXV. Upper SHANNON. 131. North Tipperary. 132. Kings. 133. West Meath. 134. Longford. XXVI. Norry ATLANTIC. 135. West Galway. 136. West Mayo. XXVII. Norra ConnauGut. 137. East Mayo. 138, Sligo. 139. Leitrim. 140. Roscommon. XXVIII. Erne 141. Fermanagh. 142. Cavan. 143. Monaghan. 144, Tyrone. 145. Armagh. XXIX. DoNEGAL. 146. Donegal. XXX. U.uster Coast. 147. Down. 148. Antrim. 149. Derry. As a few of the larger counties are divided into two Vice-counties the lines used for that purpose must be described. Kerry is divided into North and South by a line which follows the course of the river Flesk from the place where it enters the county to its mouth in the Lower Lake of Killarney, then skirts the northern shore of that lake as far as the river Laune, which it descends to the sea, Cork 3 26 | INTRODUCTION. is separated into North and South by a line descending the river Sullane from its entrance into the county to its junction with the river Lee, and then following the course of that river to the sea. Tipperary is conveniently divided into North and South by the Great Southern and Western Railway. In Galway the division into East and West is well defined by Lough Corrib and the river which flows from it. In Mayo a boundary between the East and West is also tolerably well marked by Lough Mask and the course of the river Ayle as far as a small lake above Ballyhean church; from thence it is imaginary for a short distance until it reaches the road from Tuam to Castlebar close to a hamlet called Tully; then it follows that road as far as Castlebar, and from thence descends the course of the water through Lough Cullin and by the river Moy to the sea near Ballina. This division into Provinces has been adopted by Messrs. Moore and More in their Cybele Hibernica, but they have not thought it desirable as yet to attempt determining the distribution of the plants under the Counties separately. One inconvenience of the tabular form has already been mentioned, another is that it does not give a very satis- factory idea of the extent to which the country has been examined. For instance, Provinces vi. South Wales, and vii. North Wales, seem to be tolerably known; but in fact only very small parts of them are in that condition. Few or no Rubi are recorded from the counties of Glamorgan, Brecon and Caermarthen, in 8. Wales; or from Denbigh, Flint and Anglesea, in N. Wales. Also it is only some small parts of the other counties that have been examined ; viz. spots where a botanist interested in brambles has been able to reside for a considerable time. INTRODUCTION. 27 The Fruticose Rubi do not ascend to a great elevation above the level of the sea. Mr Watson (Compend. of Cyb. Britan. 19) considers their upper limit to be in his Super- agrarian zone, which is characterized by the presence of Quercus, Fraxinus, Lonicera and Crataegus, and by the presence of Pteris without Rhamnus. In the vale of Llanberis in North Wales 600 feet is about the height at which they appear to cease. Below that elevation they are immediately plentiful; above that I only noticed one bush (A. discolor), which was growing under a wall at the great height of 1000 to 1100 feet ; but as no others occurred, its existence there was probably the result of accident. Mr Lees (Bot. of Worcest. p. 142) states that “In general Rubi delight in hilly spots of moderate height, becoming prostrate...at above 2000 feet of elevation, but descending and luxuriating even on the sands of the sea-shore.” It is therefore possible that the elevation which my observation has led me to adopt as the upper limit of their growth is too small, especially as Mr H. C. Watson gives 900 ft. as the highest point at which they are found in the West Highlands of Scotland, and Mr Baker about the same elevation in the Humber and Tyne Districts. It would be interesting to ascertain if the A. swberectus which Mr Lees informs me that he found near “Gors Lwm on Banwen” Mountain in Glamorganshire, at an elevation of about 2000 feet, is the true plant, or is not rather the hk. fissus. I have never noticed &. suberectus on exposed spots such as that must be, but have often seen R. fissus on open mountain sides, although never at so great an elevation. J. fissus is the R. suberectus of many recorded stations, especially of those in Scotland. 28 INTRODUCTION. To judge properly of a bramble from a preserved speci- men we require a piece of the middle of the stem with more than one leaf; the base and tip of the stem are also desirable. Likewise a piece of the old stem with the flowering shoot attached to it; the panicle with flowers, and the fruit. We likewise want to know the direction of the stem through- out, of the leaflets, and of the calyx; also the shape of the petals and the colour of the styles: a note of these should be made when the specimen is gathered. In quoting the works of different authors I do not hold myself responsible for the correctness of all the synonyms given by them. In some cases I have no doubt of their incorrectness, but do not possess any absolute proof of it. The localities for each species are with comparatively few exceptions founded upon specimens preserved in my own Herbarium. When such is not the case the authority is added within brackets and a (!) appended wherever I have seen a specimen. But as many of these latter have not been recently seen I must not be considered as now guaran- teeing their absolute accuracy. BOOKS QUOTED IN THIS VOLUME. Anders.— A.N. H—. Arrh.— Bab.— Anderson, G. In Linnean Transactions, xi. 4to. London, 1815. Annals of Natural History, 8vo. London, 1838, &e. Arrhenius, Monographia Ruborum Suecie, 8vo. Upsala, 1840. Babington, Manual of British Botany, 12mo. London, Ed. 1, 1843; Ed. 2, 1847; Ed. 3, 1851; Ed. 4, 1856; Ed. 5, 1862; Ed. 6, 1867. Primitiz Flore Sarnice, 12mo. London, 1839. Synopsis of the British Rubi, 8vo. London, 1846 (also in Ann, Nat. Hist. xvii., and Transactions of the Edinburgh Botanical Society, ii.). In Annals of Nat. Hist. xix., and Ser. 2. ix. (also in Trans, Edin, Bot. Soe. iii. and iv.). In Botanical Gazette, i. 8vo. London, 1849. Flora of Cambridgeshire, 12mo. London, 1860. 3—3 30 Bell Salt.— . Blox.— Boenn.— Bor.— Borr.— . Bot. Gaz.— . Chab.— °; L, B— . SEBS: Fr-— . Garke— . Genev.— . BOOKS QUOTED. Bell Salter. In Ann, of Nat. Hist. xv. and xvi. 1845. In Phytologist, ii, 1845. In Botanical Gazette, 11. 1850. In Hooker and Arnott’s British Flora, 12mo. London, 1850. In Bromfield’s Flora Vectensis, 8vo. London, 1856. Bloxam. In Kirby’s Flora of Leicestershire, 12mo. 1850. Boenninghausen, Prodromus Flore Monaster- ensis Westphalorum, 8vo, Monast. 1824. Boreau, Flore du Centre de la France, Ed. 3, 8vo. Paris, 1857. Borrer. In Hooker's British Flora, 8vo. London, Ed. 2, 1831; Ed. 3, 1835. The Botanical Gazette, 8vo. London, 1849 —O51. L’Abbé Chaboisseau, De létude specifique du Genus Rubus (Congrés Sc. de France, 28 Session, tom. iii.), Bordeaux, 1863, Smith and Sowerby, English Botany, 8vo. London, 1791—1814. Supplement to the English Botany, 8vo. London, 1831, &c. Fries, Mantissa tertia Novitiarum FJ. Sue- cicee, 8vo. Upsala, 1842. Summa Vegetabilium Scandinavie, 8vo. Holmie, 1846. Flora von Nord- und Mittel-Deutschland, 12mo, Ed. 7, Berlin, 1865. Genevier, Essai (1) sur quelques espéces du Godr.— . Hall— Hort— Johns.— . Lam.— Lange— . Lees— Leight.— BOOKS QUOTED. 31 Genus Rubus de Maine et Loire et de la Vendée (Mém. Soc. Academ, d’Angers, vili.), 8vo, Angers, 1860. Essai (2) sur quelques espéces du Genus Rubus de Maine, &c. (Mém. Soc. Acad. d’Ang. x.), 8vo. Angers, 1861. Observations sur la Collection de Rubus de V Herbier de T. Bastard (Mém. Soc. Acad. d’Ang. xiv.), 8vo. Angers, 1863. Godron. In Grenier et Godron Flore de France, 8vo. Paris, 1848. Flore de Lorraine, Ed. 2, 12mo. Paris, 1857. Monographie des Rubus aux environs de Nancy, 8vo. Nancy, 1843. In Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, iii. 4to, Edinburgh, 1794. In Ann, Nat. Hist. Ser. 2, vii. 8vo. London, 1851. Johnston, Botany of the Eastern borders, 8vo. London, 1853. Lamarck, Flore Francais, Ed. 1, 8vo. Paris, 1778. Danske Flora, 12mo. Kjobenhavn, 1856—59, In Steele’s Handbook of Field Botany, 12mo. Dublin, 1847. In Phytologist, iii. 8vo. London, 1848. Botany of Malvern, Ed. 2, 12mo, London, 1852. Botany of Worcestershire, 8vo. Worcester, 1867. Leighton, Flora of Shropshire, 8vo. Shrews- bury, 1841, 32 Lej.—. Lindl.— . Merc.— . Metsch— . Miill.— Peterm.— Phytol.— Poir.— fay— Reichenb.— . Rub. Germ.— Schultz— BOOKS QUOTED. In Phytologist, iii. 8vo. London, 1848. Lejeune, Review de la Flore de Spa, 8vo. Liege, 1824. Lindley, Synopsis of the British Flora, 12mo. London, Ed, 1, 1829; Ed. 2, 1835. Linneus, Species Plantarum, 8vo. Holmiz, Ed. 1, 1753; Ed. 2, 1762. Flora Suecie, 8vo. Ed. 2, Stockholm, 1755. Mercier, Rubi Genevienses (in Reuter, Cat. P]. de Genéve, Ed. 2, 1861), 12mo. Ge- néve. Rubi Hennebergenses. In the Linnea, XXViil. (xil.), 8vo. 1856. Miiller, Versuch einer Monographischen dar- stellung der gattung Rubus, in the Polli- chia, 1859. Petermann, Flora Lipsiensis, 12mo. Lipsiz, 1838. The Phytologist, 8vo. London, 1841, &c. Poiret, Encyclopédie Méthodique. Botanique, 4to. Paris, 1783—1817. Synopsis Methodica stirpium Britannicarum, 8vo, London, Ed. 1, 1690; Ed. 2, 1696; Ed. 3, 1724. Reichenbach, Flora Germanica Excursoria, 32mo. Lipsie, 1830. Weihe et Nees v. Esenbech, Rubi Ger- manici, Fol. Elberfeld, 1822—27. Prodromus Flore Stargardensis, 8vo. Berlin, 1806. Supplementum ad Fl. Stargard. 8vo. Neo- brandenberg, 1827. Ser.— Sm.— . Sonder— Syme . Trattin.— BOOKS QUOTED. 30 Archives de la Flore de France et d Alle- magne, 8vo. Bitche, 1842—55. Seringe. In De Candolle, Prodromus, ii. 8vo. Paris, 1825. Smith, Flora Britannica, 8vo. London, 1800. English Flora, 8vo. London, 1824. English Botany, 8vo. London. Flora Hamburgensis, 12mo. Hamburg, 1851. English Botany, Ed. 3, 8vo, London, 1863, &e. Trattinnick, Rosacearum Monographia, 12mo. Vindebone, 18253. Vanden Bosch.—Prodromus Flore Batavee, 8vo. 1850. Wallr.— . Webb and Coleman.— Weihe— . Wimm.— Woods— Wallroth, Schedule Critice, 8vo. Hale, 1822. Flora Hertfordiensis, 12mo. London, 1849. In Bluff et Fingerhuth, Compendium Flor Germanic, 12mo, Norinbergiw, Ed. 1,1825 ; Ed. 2, 1837. In Wimmer et Grabowski, Flora Silesiz, 8vo. Vratislavie, 1829. Wimmer, “‘ Flore von Schlesien, 8vo. Berlin, 1832.” Flore v. Schlesien, Preuss. und Osterr. An- theils, 12mo. Breslau, 1840. Tourist’s Flora, 8vo. London, 1850. In Phytologist, Ser. 2, 8vo. London, 1856. THE BRITISH RUBI. Nat. Ord. ROSACEZ. Subord. RosE#, Tr. DRYADE. Rubus Linn. Calyz explanatus, limbo 5-partitus, ab ovariis dis- cretus, persistens. Petala quinque, calyci inserta. Stamina indefinita, cum petalis inserta. Ovaria plura, receptaculo convexo imposita, unilocularia. Stylus sub- terminalis, filiformis, brevis; stigma simplex. - bo. J 2 o*4 a ial sreratiad 4 - : SERCO SE pa eh nage ae ae ee : : A Nese MONE Sear See Www O eweee * 4 Ler} th Raeto enc : ~ ‘ en eee - rey Sn tenet wo - ' x ye Sante WAP Sie ate yy ceacoene a Ee PAE ESS WE SESE OE IS SGOT EES ; SAAS S ODO 5 PMT Neate e eo tes eee ele Skee beara ~~ ve ry nap A eh Doe de LON etme eel om St wo eS SON Oe OO esa oa Te a Set Maka vaee Ne i SOS & a eo ; : G ¥ ; Se Gee RFENE URE ete eee Sete MT “ otter Ve os « iw Aone newer thanens, aby au . rw. oe mee ee ee - Pe ey ely Sey ae oe 5 ~ . . . as . ™ a X Ried ? , Shey SO ele iw wee weer . Sent ree Petes ae woe wxtatae PT Netto lt Na veteN Me Pate Mao re MeN ae eee ete etete eta te Move aera teen KNOG OR AO - - a p Pa n - : “ a N7 ‘wu N™M eee eS a “. ee ln a ee ee