66 Rydberg: Notes on Rosaceae — XIV 



arkansanoides . All these names are superfluous, however, for 

 the plant is the same as R. suffulta Greene. Besides these names 

 several varietal names have been proposed. R. dulcissima 

 Lunell is apparently based on a more luxuriant and less bristly 

 form of this species. 



13. Rosa alcea Greene 



This species stands somewhat in the same relationship to 

 R. suffulta as R. Lunellii does to R. arkansana. The plant 

 is described as having prickly hypanthium, but this is not 

 always the case. The upper part of the plant, especially the 

 upper stipules and the bracts, are densely glandular, the glands 

 often extend to the pedicels and hypanthium, the stalks of the 

 glands sometimes become indurate and hence the hypanthium 

 is prickly in fruit. This is sometimes also the case in R. suffulta, 

 which form was described as R. pratincola setulosa by Cockerell. 



Saskatchewan: Milk River Ridge, 1895, Macoun 10541; 

 Moose Jaw, Spreadboro 10625 ;a\so Macoun 1053 g; Regina 1903, 

 Fowler; Indian Head, 1; Prince Albert, Macoun 12767 (?). 



South Dakota: Dead wood, Can 150. 



14. Rosa conjuncta Rydberg 



This is related to R. suffulta and R. subglabra on the one 

 hand, and to R. virginiana on the other. It differs from the 

 last in the lack of glandular hairs on the hypanthium; in the 

 pale green leaves with sharper toothing; in the absence of 

 infrastipular spines; and in the insertion of the achenes, which 

 is on the inside walls as well as in the bottom of the hypanthium. 

 From R. subglauca it differs in the leaves pubescent beneath 

 and in the reflexed sepals. It resembles R. suffulta in habit and 

 pubescence, but the leaflets are more acute at the apex and 

 cuneate at the base and glaucous, and the sepals are reflexed 

 or spreading after anthesis. As the plant has been confused 

 with R. suffulta and R. arkansana, this latter character caused 

 the error in Britton's Manual, in which R. arkansana (which 

 then included R. suffulta) was described as having spreading 

 sepals. I am responsible for the error. R. conjuncta might be 

 a hybrid of R. suffulta and R. Lyoni or some other species of the 

 Carolina group, but none of the species of that group or of the 

 Cinnamomea group (except the high northern R. subglauca) has 



