b A LIST OF BRITISH ROSES 



by Mr. Savery. The British plant usually so called also occurs 

 on the Continent, but more raf ely, and as regards styles, shortness 

 of peduncles, breadth of bracts, size and shape of prickles, and 

 size of leaflets, is quite as near the Eu-canince as the Stylosce 

 section. There are certainly differences between my specimens, 

 but I must confess my inability to see from them or from the 

 other specimens studied where group Stylosa ends and section 

 Eu-canina begins. The connecting-link is to be found in B. incerta 

 Des6gl., one of the dumctorum group, to which my 1782 probably 

 and 1772 and 1821 possibly belong. V.-c. for the British plant, 1, 2, 

 3, 4, 5 (or 6?), 9, 11 (fide Bogers); for Desvaux' plant, 3, 15, 17. 



E. STYLOSA var. pseudo-rusticana Crep. in Journ. Bot. 1889, 

 p. 24. This well-marked variety, which is quite worthy of specific 

 rank, still appears to be restricted to the four vice-counties quoted. 

 A specimen from S. Devon is considered by Sudre and Dingier to be 

 near B. rusticana Desegl., but both those authorities admit that 

 they do not know Crepin's variety. V.-c. 3, 5, 8, and 9. 



E. viRGiNEA Eip. ex Deseghse in Journ. Bot. 1874, p. 167. My 

 two gatherings from S. Devon, referred to in B. E. p. 16, have been 

 confirmed by Dingier, and I have seen a specimen from E. Sussex 

 {Boffey) which almost certainly belongs here. V.-c. 3, 14. 



E. STYLOSA var. evanida Chr. in Bot. Exch. Club Eept. 1879, 

 p. 12. Last summer I found quite a considerable number of 

 bushes of this variety on Ham Common, so it is in no danger of 

 extinction, as I feared. It diverges almost as widely from the 

 type as does our usual form of B. leucocliroa, and is more worthy 

 of specific rank than what I take to be the true species of Desvaux. 

 (See remarks under B. litigiosa Crep.) V.-c. 17. 



E. Garroutei Pug. & Eip. in Bull. Soc. Dauph. p. 68. This 

 name has been given by Sudre to one of Mr. Hunnybun's Hunts 

 specimens. It has all the characteristics of B. systyla, but has 

 glabrous slightly biserrate leaflets, and the peduncles are almost 

 smooth. I have not seen the original description, but the speci- 

 mens agree well with that given in Eouy's key, so the name might 

 stand in our list, at least provisionally. It is - possible that 

 a specimen from W. Gloster {Buchiall^, which is referred later to 

 B. cJilorantha Sauz. & Maill., also belongs here. V.-c. 31, 34 '?, 



[B. stylosa var. microphylla Eouy, Fl. Fr. vi. 284. M. Sudre 

 applied this name to one of my specimens of supposed B. leuco- 

 cliroa from S. Devon, no. 1821. It is in some respects near var. 

 evanida, and Mr. Eogers thought it nearer B. obtusifoUa, so I have 

 excluded it.] 



E. parvula Sauz. & Maill. Fl. Deux Sevres, p. 223. I distri- 

 buted specimens through the Bot. Exch. Club in 1909 labelled 

 B. seposita Des6gl., though Sudre thought it to be near B. parvula. 

 Dingier has since expressed the same opinion, so it had better be 

 so labelled. Its habit is peculiar from its very numerous, long, 

 almost unarmed, very florifei'ous branches. Its leaflets are biser- 

 rate, slightly hairy beneath, peduncles smooth and styles almost 

 glabrous. V.-c. 17. 



