A REVISED AUKAXliEMEXT OF BRITISH ROSES. 

 By Lt.-Col. a. H. Wolley-Dod. 



TiTE dilHeulties surrounding tlie naming of our species and varie- 

 ties ot" Hoses increase rather than diniinisli as I see a greater number 

 of specimens, though I am convinced that a sutiicientl_y prolonged 

 study of them will show that they can usually be segregated into 

 varieties of which the individuals sufficiently closely resemble one 

 another to be satisfactory, which at present is not the case. But if 

 this be done, either the Subgroups or even the larger Groups will 

 have to be abolished. There is little doubt in my mind that varieties, 

 for example, with slightly hairy leaflets, or wath glandular-hispid 

 peduncles may in many cases be linked to those which do not present 

 these characters, and therefore now appear in different Groups. In 

 other words, I believe we should be guided at least as much by 

 general habit and appearance as by technical characters, but this will 

 be difficult with dried specimens. 



Most of the very detailed descriptions of Deseglise, Ripart, and 

 others, ev,en those of Woods, can hardly be other than tliose of an 

 individual bush or specimen, which cannot be completely matched by 

 any other. Some descriptions, on the other hand, are so short and 

 vague that, in the absence of authors' types, it is impossible to say 

 what they mean, and authors' types are often so small and scrappy as 

 to be useless. 



The more I see of Deseglise's herbarium, the more unnecessarj'- con- 

 fusion and mixture I see in it, and I fear I have been misled by many 

 of his names. Yet I think few rhodologists will dispute that we 

 have a large number of distinguishable forms, which can be more or 

 less well segregated. The difficulty is that of deciding which features 

 are of importance, the relative values of wdiich also depend on the 

 Group into which they fall. 



In the subjoined paper the characters, which only touch on the 

 main features, are drawn up partly from descrij^tions and parth" from 

 specimens named on good authority, though, as said before, I may 

 have been misled by some of Deseglise's names. The}^ are for the 

 jjresent, I fear, onh^ provisional, until further study confirms or alters 

 them. It seems more than likely that some of the Subgroups will have 

 to be expanded, and others curtailed, but a satisfactory solution is 

 almost beyond the powers of an individual. 



I should be very glad to see any collection of Roses and to name 

 them in accordance with these views, and still more glad to receive 

 criticisms on the arrangement, or the names given to specimens. It 

 is only with the help of such criticism and the advice of those who 

 have studied the genus that progress can be hoped for, as there are 

 many parts of the kingdom I am unable to visit in order to study 

 the growing plants and their habits. 



Finally, it is hoped that this expression of the difficulties, rather 

 than suggestions for their removal, will not cause botanists to avoid 

 the genus. Knowledge can only be obtained by stud}^ and experience, 

 and if collectors would send me good specimens, not the ends of 

 flowering shoots, which are almost useless, and study their local forms, 

 JouRKAL or BuTAM, ApiiiL, 1920. [Supplement I.] b 



