208 Mr. Woops on the British Species of Rosa. 
smaller ones. In R. Eglanteria the aculei of the shoots, and frc- 
quently those of the branches, are mixed with scattered prickles 
of all sizes; though in small specimens this character may some- 
times be wanting. In both species a few sete may occasionally 
be noticed on the stem immediately below the inflorescences. 
but these seem to be merely accidental. 
Mr. Borrer found a Rose in Normandy nearly allied to this, 
and most resembling the variety 8 ; and Mr. Hooker brought spe- 
cimens of the same from the South of France; but it has not 
been described by the French botanists, or at least I cannot ap- 
propriate to it any of their descriptions. 
This Rose has been very unfortunate in its name; it is called 
eglantina, eglentina, and esglentina, by Bauhin and the early bo- 
tanists. Linnzus in his first edition of the Species Plantarum 
called it R. Eglanteria; but in the second he transferred that 
name to the single yellow Rose, still however quoting the same 
synonyms, all of which clearly belong to this plant. And this 
species is not given, nor does the name of R. rubiginosa occur, 
until the publication of the Mantissa Plantarum altera : indeed it 
seems as if Linnœæus at one time confounded the two species, 
misled merely by the circumstance of the glandular and fragrant 
leaf, which is almost the only character not common to the whole 
genus, in which these two Roses agree. Notwithstanding R.rubi- 
ginosa has been adopted by most of the modern botanists, I have 
ventured to restore the name originally given by Linnzus, in 
which I am supported by the authority of Hudson and of Poiret, 
Encycl. Nat. The yellow Rose, which is not a British plant, has 
latterly been more properly named R. lutea, from the hue, which 
is very rare in flowers of this genus. 
15. Rosa 
