Page:Journal of botany, British and foreign, Volume 34 (1896).djvu/312

 286 PROFESSOB BABINGTON ON RUBUS IN 1891. extracted from the body of the work the Professor's account of R. lentlginosm Lees. I had thought this too obscure a form to claim a place in our Euhus list ; but I have now had the advantage of seeing Lees's authentic specimens in the Cambridge Babington Herbarium, and I find them identical with the plant described by Dr. Focke, and published only last year in Griffith's Ft. Angl. (6 Carnarv. as R. camhricus Focke. This latter name must now of course give place to R. lentiginosus Lees, published so long ago as 1849 in Steele's Handbook, p. 60. Dr. Focke would place it next to R. Qiiestierii Lefv. & Muell. — W. Moyle Eogers.] Preface. The time seems to have arrived when a new treatise on the British Rubi is required, and as I am told that this is expected from me, I have endeavoured to prepare one. It does not supersede my British Rubi, the object of which was to ascertain the plants intended by British authorities up to the time (1869) of its publication. My chief object now is to endeavour to identify our plants with those of the continental authors, especially Focke and Genevier. I now possess the means wanting to me in 1869, for the whole herbarium of Genevier has come to Cambridge, and through the kindness of Dr. Focke I possess named specimens of most of his species ; many others which he could not give me have been ob- tained by the liberality of English botanists, who have had their plants named by him. I feel therefore that probably the duty of preparing a new British Rubi has really devolved upon me. But the further I go in the study of our native plants the clearer it becomes that we really are far from truly understanding them. As my former book was only provisional, this also cannot claim any higher position. If it helps forward those who are studying this difficult genus, my wishes are fully met. Not only is much continued study of the plants required before we can decide what forms are to be accepted as species, what are permanent varieties, and what are only variations which may be expected to revert when propagated by seed to the more permanent forms, and also which of them may be fairly considered as the result of hybridization, but a careful study of them all in the living state must be made. Unfortunately living in a district where Eubi are far from abundant, it has been out of my power to do this, and therefore I may, nay must, have fallen into error in many cases. Those botanists who are more favourably situated must be looked to for making the necessary corrections. This book can only be considered as preliminary, very far from being a final, determination of the Rubi to be found in Britain. I have therefore named and described many forms which seem to be well marked, but may not prove to be permanent after the requisite study has been bestowed upon them in their native places of growth. Focke justly remarks that ''Very few botanists recognize the fact that there are in Europe at the present time perhaps fifty times the number of apparently permanent forms of plants reproduced from seed than we find species recorded in books. According to