Mr. Woops on the British Species of Rosa. 209 
ET 
15. Rosa MICRANTHA. 
R. fructibus ampullaceo-ellipticis, aculeis aduncis subaequalibus, 
foliolis hirsutis subtus glandulosis duplicato-serratis. 
R. micrantha. Engl. Bot. xxxv. t. 2490. 
Frutex 5—8-pedalis. Rami diffusi, virides vel fusco-virides, aculeati; aculei adunci, 
' nunc sparsi, nunc binato-stipulares. — Pe?ioli tomentosi, glandulosi, aculeisque rec- 
tiusculis vel faleatis muniti, — S/ipulce lineares, glanduloso-serrate, interdum subtus 
:glandulosze, ex floribus propiores solitariæ vix ceteris latiores, cymarum tandem foliis 
deficientibus in bracteas lanceolatas acuminatas immutatæ, Foliola 5 vel 7, par supe- 
rius et foliolum impar ceteris majora, elliptica, duplicato-serrata, supra vix hirta, subtus 
pilis glandulisque odoriferis vestita. Pedunculi 1—11, setis obsiti, quarum nonnulle, 
rarissime tamen, aculeiformes. Receptaculum ellipticum, fuscum, setis sparsis præ- 
. cipue basi munitum. Calycis foliola glandulosa, pinnata, pinnis lanceolatis glandu- 
loso-ciliatis. Flores cyathiformes, rubescentes, Styli inclusi; stigmata planiuscula. 
Fructus parvus coccineus, interdum ellipticus, sed sæpius si minusve urceolatus, 
Hedges and bushy places in the southern and midland counties. 
This species was first established by Sir J. E. Smith in English 
Botany. Its closest affinity is certainly to R. Eglanteria ; and 
I bave already: pointed out under that Rose i- characters by 
which these species are best discriminated. I may add, that the 
present plant uniformly wants the strong seta at the base of the 
fruit, which I have constantly found in R. Eglanteria, except in 
the rare variety B, which in most other respects assumes an ap- 
pearance directly opposite to R. micrantha. "The habit of this 
species is indeed so loose and. straggling, that an inattentive ob- 
server might pass it over as a variety of R. canina. "The fruit is 
always small, and never has the pear-shaped form of the primor- 
dial fruit of R. Eglanteria; the flowers are also generally smaller, 
but this is an uncertain mark. The scent varies exceedingly, 
being sometimes very weak, at other times not to be distin- 
uished from that of R. Eglanteria, and once or twice I have ob- 
served the turpentine flavour which is generally to be perceived 
VOL. XII. | 2E t 
