136 



Sievers » published in 1797 in the Nov. Àct. Acad, Se. 

 Imp. Pefropolilanae, p. 379, (ab. X, fig.S. Pallas' descrip- 

 tion is, considering the tinie at which it was wrilten, 

 aecurale and good. He speaks of « foliis simplicibiis » of 

 « stipiilae praeter spinas nullae » and notices the arrange- 

 ment of the spines,and the peculiar colored spot at the base 

 of the petals. What he means by the expression « nequid- 

 quam piloso » appHed to the interior of the « pericarpium » 

 (receptacular-tube) 1 do not know. 



Salisbury, in his Prod. stirp. in horto ad Chapel Aller ton 

 vigentium (1796), p. 359,says that he grew the plant which 

 he called R. simplidfolia, for two years although he des- 

 cribed il from a spécimen in the herbarium of Sir Joseph 

 Banks. He too speaks of the plant as provided « foliis sim- 

 plicibus. » The same author (1806), in W. Hook, Para- 

 disus Londinensis, tab. 101, says « foliis simplicibus 

 exstipulatis . » 



Willdenow in 1797, Sp. Plant., tom. 2, pars 2, p. 1063, 

 speaks of the leaves as simple. 



In 1820 Lindley, Rosarum monographia, p. 1, des- 

 cribes the leaves as simple and exstipulate and says no 

 other Rose bas compound aculei. 



Under the generic name of Hulthemia Dumortier in 

 1824 (ex Endlicher Gen.), says the plant bas « folia 

 abortiva sifb nulla, eorum loco stipulae connatae folii- 

 /ormes. » 



In 1829, Rot. Reg. t, 1261, Lindiey describes our plant 

 as Lowea berberifolia to which he attribiites « folia sim- 

 plicia exstipiilatay aculei saepius composili, cetera Rosae ». 

 « The simple leaves », he continues, « are not analogous 

 to the terminal pinna of a Rose leaf for there is no trace of 

 the articulation upon their pétiole... neither can they be 



