Tas. 7035. 
ROSA INcARNATA. 
Native of France. 
Nat. Ord. Rosacez.—Tribe RosEz. 
Genus Rosa, Linn. ; (Benth. et Hook.f. Gen. Pl. vol. i. p. 625.) 
Rosa incarnata ; ramulis inermibus strictis superne petiolisque glanduloso-pubes- 
centibus, stipulis magnis ellipticis glandulosis, foliolis 3-5 subsessilibus 
ellipticis supra viridibus subtus pallidis glaucescentibus, nervis validis plus 
minusve marginibusque duplicato-serrulatis glandulosis, pedunculis solitariis 
paucisve calycibusque sericeo-glandulosis, calycis tubo ovoideo utrinque an- 
gustato, sepalis lanceolatis longe acuminatis tribus pinnatifidis, disco par- 
vulo, stylis liberis hispidis, corolla majuscula lete rosea. 
R. incarnata, Mill. Gard. Dict. Ed. 1, Rosa No. 28, Ed. 3, Rosa No. 19; Boreau 
Fl. Centr. Fr. Ed. 2, p. 218; Crepin in Bull. Soc. Bot. Belg. vol. xv. 
p. 244; Deseglise in Men. Soc. Acad. Maine et Loire, p. 72, et extra, p. 32; 
Fourreau Cat. Pl. Cours de Rhone, p. 73. 
It seems incredible that a plant growing wild in several 
parts of France, and which was recognized in English 
gardens two hundred and forty-eight years ago, and named 
and described in a standard work a hundred and seventeen 
years ago, should have, as it were, passed entirely out of the 
knowledge of horticulturists and botanists till the latter half 
of the present century. Yet such is the history of the 
Rtosa incarnata, of Miller, enumerated under this name in 
the first edition of that author’s Gardener’s Dictionary, 
published in 1731, and described in the third edition 
(1771) of the same work. Nor is this its earliest recogni- 
tion, for Miller in his first edition (1737) cites Parkinson’s 
Herbal published in 1640, where (p. 1019) allusion is made 
to ‘the Trachynia, our pale red rose which Lugdunensis 
saith the French call Rosa incarnata, but Camerarius in 
horto saith it is a purple rose of a deeper or blackish rose- 
red colour with a pale violet colour mixed therewith, &c.” 
In Parkinson’s Herbal (1656) I find “2. Rosa incarnata, 
the Carnation Rose,” to which is added “ Rosa Belgica sive 
vitrea.”’?’ On the other hand, Miller in his first edition 
cites Rosa Belgica sive vitrea ‘‘as another plant, and in 
his third edition he describes it as having a prickly stalk.” 
JANUARY Ist, 1889. 
