324 PROCEEDINGS OP THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 



XIV. 



CONTRIBUTIONS TO AMERICAN BOTANY. 

 By Sereno Watson. 



Communicated January 14th, 18S5. 



1. A History and Revision of the Roses of North America. 



History. — Perhaps tlie earliest notice of our wild roses is founrl in 

 the account of Gosnold's voyage in 1G02, where the ''eglantine" is 

 noted among other plants growing on Cuttyhunk. Iligginson (1630) 

 and Jo.sselyn (1G72) also make mention of wild "single damaske 

 roses" in New England, " verie swcete." The first botanist to men- 

 tion an American species is Parkinson, in his Theatrum Botanicum, in 

 1640, where he describes his '•'■ Rosa sylvestris Virgin! ensis ; the Vir- 

 ginia Bryer Rose," with " divers as great stemmcs and branches as 

 any other Rose, set with many small prickles and a few great thornes 

 among them, the leaves very greene and shining, small and almost 

 round." lie does not state upon what materials his description was 

 based, but, as it accords rather more nearly with R. lacida than with 

 any other species, they were probably from New England, which was 

 included in the region then known as Virginia. The name and essen- 

 tially the sam(! description are given by Ray in the Historki Plantarum 

 (1693), but without any additional information. 



The next description is by Dillenius, in the Hortus Elthamensis 

 (1732), of a species introduced into England by James Sherard in 

 1726, which he figures and describes under the phrase '•'Rosa Carolina 

 fragrans ; foliis ynedioteniis serratis." Eroni the name it may be in- 

 ferred that it was originally from the Southern States, and it may be 

 quite clearly identified with the R. humilis of Marshall (the later A*. 

 parvifolia of Ehrhart). He also describes and figures a second spe- 

 cies as raised by Sherard from seeds received from New England. 

 This, however, is evidently not an American rose, but European, as 

 was perceived by Linnaius, who made it the basis of his R. pendulina. 

 Too much confidence in Dillenius's statement of its origin led later 

 botanists into much needless trouble in attempting upon no other 

 ground to retain it among American species. 



