Rydberg: Notes on Rosaceae — XIV 69 



22. Rosa Woodsii Lindl. 



This was published in 1820 in Lindley's Monograph. Five 

 years later Lindley published an illustration in the Botanical 

 Register of what he supposed to be the same, but evidently he 

 was mistaken. In the Botanical Register (pi. gy6) Lindley gave 

 the following remarks: 



It was subsequently named and published by the writer of these remarks 

 . . . but the specimens which were examined for the purpose, were so im- 

 perfect that, upon a comparison of the characters ascribed to the species with 

 fresh specimens, they were ascertained to be materially erroneous; the stipulae, 

 which were stated to possess the remarkable peculiarity of being convo- 

 lute like those of R. Carolina, proving to be, in fact, like those of R. 

 lucida. 



But in M. de Candolle's Prodromus a new character is proposed for 

 this plant. M. Seringe, by whom the article Rosa was prepared, had an 

 opportunity of examining specimens in De Candolle 's Herbarium. And yet 

 our original error is still retained by Mr. Seringe, who has added to it more 

 than one of his own. He defines the leaflets to be shining, while in fact they 

 are the reverse; the sepals to be naked, which are covered with glands; and 

 the lower pair of leaflets to be placed at a distance from the others, and fringed 

 with glands, a peculiarity which we believe does not exist. * 



We cannot dismiss this subject without expressing our regret that the 

 general brilliancy of M. de Candolle's Prodromus should be tarnished by 

 an article so inaccurately compiled as the genus Rosa is, in the 2d volume of 

 that work. 



These cutting remarks of Lindley 's were wholly unwarranted, 

 for Seringe did not assign any new characters that were not 

 found in Lindley's original publication, and it was the latter 

 himself that assigned new characters. Let Us recite a few lines 

 from Lindley's own description in his Monograph, page 22. 



Leaves without pubescence; stipules very narrow and acute, convolute 

 and fringed with glands . . . Leaflets 7-9, shaped like those of R. 

 rubella, shining, flat, simple, acute, paler beneath . . . Fruit naked, 

 ovate, with short, connivent, entire sepals which are free from glands as is 

 the peduncle. 



From this it is evident that Rosa Woodsii of the Botanical 

 Register is not the same as the original one described in Lindley 's 

 Monograph. This carelessness on Lindley's part has caused a 

 great deal of confusion, and it is hard to know what the 

 original R. Woodsii was. Some have suggested R. humilis, but 

 as the pedicels, hypanthium and sepals were without glands 

 and the latter connivent, this suggestion is far from the truth. 



