^ A LIST OF BRITISH ROSES 



number. In cases where I have no record of the vice-county, I 

 have named the whole county. 



It will readily be seen, both from these introductory remarks, 

 and from the notes following each species or variety, that we are 

 very far from finality as to our British Rose list, while the distri- 

 bution is so imperfectly known that it is at present quite mis- 

 leading. Time has not permitted me to re-examine the specimens 

 in our national herbaria with a view to bringing them into line 

 with the present list, nor to prepare dichotomous keys to the 

 groups and subgroups. 



My impression gains strength that the subdivision into groups, 

 perhaps even into sections, is too artificial. It is difficult to 

 believe that a few scattered hairs on the midribs, or the presence 

 of a few denticles on some of the main teeth, or a little dilS'erence 

 in the pinnation of the sepals, and all such characters can throw 

 such similar-looking plants into different groups or subgroups as 

 they do, yet if one disregards such characters, it is not easy to see 

 what written ones could be substituted, however different the 

 aspect of the specimens may be. Doubtless when one gets to 

 know most of the species and varieties at sight, it will be easier 

 to group them than at present, reserving slight differences, even 

 in organs which have hitherto been regarded as important, to 

 mark the varieties only. Thus, for example, B. semiglahra Rip. 

 might be regarded either as a less hairy variety of B. dumetorutn 

 ThuilL, or as a slightly hairy one of B. lutetiana Lem. 



But our great difficulty is, first, that according to foreign 

 experts the British Roses are much more variable in their 

 characteristics, that is to say, less capable of segregation than the 

 continental ones ; and, secondly, that while the older descriptions 

 are too comprehensive from their indefiniteness, many modern 

 ones are far too diffuse, and the impression is irresistible that 

 they are those of individuals rather than of associations such as 

 we are accustomed to call species. Even some of the descriptions 

 of Crepin, v^^ho strongly deprecated over-splitting, are subject to 

 this criticism. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that no two 

 bushes are alike ; certainly it would be very difficult indeed to find 

 two in which all the minute descriptions of such very unimportant 

 organs as the stipules, auricles and bracts, quite agree ; while 

 even the more important ones, such as shape and size of prickles, 

 leaflets and fruit, may vary considerably, even on the same bush. 

 It must not be supposed, however, that I am advocating a 

 return to our old system of keeping up a relatively few names. 

 There may be only a few species, but there are certainly a large 

 number of forms as well worthy of distinction as many so-called 

 species, and I still think that the solution may lie in the creation 

 of perhaps quite a considerable number of new names, but as 

 varieties or forms, not as species. The trouble at present is that 

 it is no exaggeration to say that not ten per cent, of our specimens 

 agree exactly with the published descriptions, but are equally 

 near, or remote from, two or more. Even those placed to the 

 same variety by botanists who have studied Roses specially for 



