Tab. 8679. 

 ROSA Davidh. 



China. 



Rosaceae. Tribe Eoseae. 

 Rosa, Linn. ; Benth. et Hook. f. Gen. Plant, vol. i. p. 625. 



Rosa Davidii, Crep. in Bull. Soc. Bot. Belg. vol. xiii. p. 253 (1874) ; Franc h 

 in Nouv. Arch. Mus. Paris, ser. 2, vol. v. p. 270 (PL David, vol. i. p. 118) 

 Behder & Wils. in Sarg. PI. Wilson, vol. ii. p. 332 ; affinis R. corymbulosar, 

 Rolfe, sed foliolis plurimis simpliciter serratis, corymbis laxis, bracteis 

 majoribus, floribus majoribus et glandulis longioribus differt. 



Frutex erectus, parce raraosus, 1-2-metralis ; Hamuli laeves, aculeis rectis 

 patentibus sublatis dispersis 4-6 mm. longis armati, demum brunnei. 

 Folia 8-10 cm. longa, 7-9-foliolata ; rhaohis puberula, aculeis gracilibus 

 sparsis Lnstructa ; foliola subsessilia, elliptico-oblonga vel ovato-oblonga, 

 subacuta, simpliciter et acute serrata, subtus cinereo-puberula, 2-3 cm. 

 longa, 1-1 '5 cm. lata; stipulae adnatae, anguste oblongae, acutae 

 vel acuminatae, integrae, 0*7-1 "5 cm. longae. Flores rosei, corym- 

 bulosi, versus apices ramorum laxe dispositi, circiter 3 cm. diametro. 

 Bracteae ovatae, acuminatae, puberulae, 1*2-1 "5 cm. longae. Pedunculi 

 graciles, 3-4 cm. longi, glanduloso-setulosi. Beceptaculum anguste 

 ovoideo-oblongum, 3-4 mm. longum, crebre glandulosum. Calycis lobi basi 

 ovati, apice longe foliacei et lanceolati, acuti, 1*3-2 cm. longi, patentes, 

 intus cinereo-tomentosi. Petala late obcordata. Filamenta, glabra, 4-5 

 mm. longa; antheris aureis. Styli villosi, in columnam 6 mm. Ion gam 

 cohaerentee. Fructus ovoideus, 1-1 * 3 cm. longus, coccineus, eepalis 

 persistentibus suberectis coronatus. Achaenia villosa, ovoidea, 3 mm. 

 longa. — R. A. Rolfe. 



The Rose here figured was originally described by 

 Crepin in 1874, and was based on a flowering specimen 

 forwarded by Decaisne which was then believed to have 

 been received through the Abbe David from Mongolia. It 

 was placed somewhat doubtfully in the section bynstylae, 

 and was compared with R. moschata, Herrm., though the 

 difference in colour of petals and in the shape of the 

 sepals and bracts was pointed out. This comparison 

 and the reference to Synstylae have tended to obscure 

 the identity of David's plant, but a photograph of the 

 original specimen supplied by Mr. Gagnepain shows that 

 on the original label Crepin added to the name the 

 remark " R. macrophylla, var.," a suggestion more in 

 accord with its true affinity. This photograph further 

 shows that David had himself given the locality as 



October, 1916. 



