1900]  Crépin, — Hybrid of Rosa carolina and R. nitida — 113 
Now, I wish to call attention to another rose which may well be a 
hybrid of Rosa carolina and A. nitida. It was collected by Mr. 
George B. Fernald, at Foxcroft, Maine, in 1896, and Mr. M. L. Fer- 
nald has sent me several flowering specimens. The plant grows in 
company with or not far from Æ. carolina and X. nitida. I had at 
first considered this rose a variety of Æ. carolina, and had given it 
the name setigera, but a more recent examination has caused me to 
see in it a hybrid, Æ. carolina X nitida. It exhibits a mixture of 
the characters of its two probable ancestors. The stem is completely 
and densely setigerous with delicate prickles like those of A. nitida ; 
and the lower and middle portions of the flowering branches are more 
or less setigerous, with here and there very small and delicate stipular 
prickles. The stipules are narrow and resemble closely those of A. 
carolina, but the inflorescences are usually one-flowered, the flowers 
resembling much more those of Æ. nitida than those of A. carolina. 
It ought to be added that the plant is taller and more vigorous than 
R. nitida, and that the middle leaves of the flowering branches are as 
often 9-foliolate as in that species. 
With this rose from Foxcroft, Mr. M. L. Fernald sent me speci- 
mens of a rose, collected by him in 1896, at Lexington, Maine, which 
I have likewise considered as variety seZzgera of Rosa carolina, Al- 
though Mr. Fernald did not observe at Lexington A. carolina nor RX. 
nitida, Y am, nevertheless, inclined to believe that we have here also 
the product of crossing of those species. But the form from Lexing- 
ton is nearer Æ. carolina than is that from Foxcroft. The stem is as 
densely setigerous, and most of the flowering branches are as finely 
prickly, but the stipular prickles are much stouter, resembling those 
of R. carolina. The inflorescences are more or less multiflorous, 
with flowers strongly suggesting those of X. carolina, while the leaves 
also approach nearer those of that species. The action of Æ. carolina 
might have been stronger in the plant from Lexington than in the 
form from Foxcroft. 
JARDIN BOTANIQUE DE L’Erat, BRUXELLES. 
