204 Mr. Woops on the British Species of Rosa. 
Mr. Sabine, in whose garden is the only plant I have ever 
seen. 
Perhaps of these varieties č may be a distinct species ; $ and « 
may possibly form another; 7 a fourth; and » and £ a fifth; and 
o a sixth: this would seem a very great multiplication of spe- 
cies, and it would be extremely difficult to find for them any spe- 
cific characters. Another obstacle to considering these as six. 
species, arises from the great number of other varieties, which 
after repeated examinations I found myself unable to class with 
any one of them, and of which the distinctions are nevertheless 
exceedingly trifling. I have therefore above detailed the account 
of these, in hopes of exciting the attention of some botanist 
whose talents and opportunities. will enable him to do more jus- 
tice to the tribe. . | 
To some one or other of these varieties we must probably attri- 
bute the Rosa mollissima, Gm. Fl. Bad. Als. ; but in a genus so in- 
tricate, and with descriptions so defective as have hitherto been . 
given of the Roses, I find the difficulty exceedingly great of assign- 
ing the synonyms of preceding authors to the proper species, and 
utterly impossible to trace them to their corresponding varieties. 
The description of R. montana, Lam. et Dec. Fl. Fr. vi. 232, 
would induce me to join it to this species; but Willdenow, Sp. 
Pi. ii. 1076, refers the original plant of Villars, which is quoted 
also by Lamarck and Decandolle, to a Rose with hooked prickles 
(* aculeis uncinatis"), and which would agree tolerably well with 
R. Borreri. Among these inconsistencies I pretend not to decide 
what Villars intended, or what plant was meant by the French 
and German authors. 
R. fetida, Lam. et Dec. Fl. Fr. vi. 534, may perhaps be R. to- 
mentosa B ; but the authors compare it at once with R. collina and 
their 
