account in Hist, des PI. de Dauphine does not well agree.
In Rubi Germanici Villars’s plant is referred to R. Guntheri
of that work, which Arrhenius confidently assumes to be
but a var. of R. glandulosus. Persoon (Synops.) guesses Villars’s
plant and Bellardi’s to be the same, identical with R.
hirtus Wald, and Kit., and no more than a var. of R. coryli-
folius Sm. Duby (Bot. Gall.) unites R. glutinosus and R.
hirtus. Seringe (in DeC. Prod.) joins the two with R. hybridus
as one form of R. villosus Aiton: and Gaudin, apparently on
his authority, gives the four names as synonymous. Bertoloni
(FI. Ital.) adds to these four R. Kohleri. Reichenbach (FI.
Excurs.) maintains that R. glandulosus W. & N. is R. hirtus
Wald, and Kit., and R. hirtus W. & N. the true R. glandulosus
of Bellardi \ a notion combated by Arrhenius, who has com-
pared our R. glandulosus with an authentic specimen of the
Hungarian R. hirtus, and has most accurately described it in
his admirable Monograph.
The round stems, the ternate and otherwise peculiar leaves,
the dense covering of glands, the small prickles, and the whole
habit of the plant, distinguish R. glandulosus from R. Kohleri.
The two American species, R. hispidus Linn., which Bellardi
suspected his plant might be, and R. villosus Aiton, are, it
appears, quite different.
No 5-cleft leaves appear to have been seen on our plant
(on the typical form of the species at least), in any country;
yet it can hardly be supposed that such may not occasionally
occur. The rare 5-leaved and 1-leaved vars. of Wallroth are
both excluded in Rubi Germanici. DeCandolle’s vars. in
FI. Franc. Suppl. are very questionable; and so is R. glandulosus
of Loiseleur (FI. Gall).—W. B.