A LIST OF BRITISH ROSES » 



GROUP PIMPINELLIFOLI^ X EU-CANIN^. 



E. SPiNOSissiMA (agg.) X CANiNA (agg.) (perhaps including spino- 

 sissiina (agg.) x glauca (agg.) ). This covers B. hibernica vav. glabra 

 Baker (Eev. Brit. Eos. p. 21) and var. Grovesii Baker (Eep. Bot 

 Exch. Club, 1876, p. 15), which may arise from different parents 

 of the canina group, but which it seems hardly desirable to retain 

 as distinct varieties. Var. glabra is recorded from v.-c. 17, 58, 62 

 or 65, 66, 70, 94, 107 ; and var. Grovesii from 17 and Antrim. 



A biserrate form from Alnwick, v.-c. 68, and a form near 

 B. Schultzii Eip. from Derry, both mentioned in B. E. p. 47, 

 belong to this hybrid ; the former must arise from a dumalis 

 parentage. 



E. SPINOSISSIMA (agg.) X DUMETORUM (agg.) {B. hibernica 

 Tempi, in Trans. Dub. Soc. 2, iii. pp. 62-64) is the best known 

 representative of this group. V.-c. 58, 65, 70, Derry, and Down. 



E. INVOLUTA var. l^vigata Baker, Monogr. p. 107. V.-c. 64 

 or 65, and Derry. 



[B. involuta var. Webbii Baker in Journ. Bot. 1874, p. 338. Mr. 

 Barclay informs me that the Lothian specimen mentioned by me 

 in B. E. p. 44 is from the same bush as that from which Sadler 

 gathered his specimen of var. lavigata (id. p. 37). Apart from 

 this, I do not think that the two varieties can be separated. V.-c. 

 58, 83.] 



Another form of E. sinnosissima (agg.) x diimetorum (agg.), 

 near the continental B. sabaiula Eap., was gathered by Webster 

 in Durham. V.-c. 66. 



Hybrids between B. sjnnosissima (agg.) and B. coriifolia (agg.) 

 no doubt occur, and might easily be mistaken for B. sinnosissima 

 (agg.) X dumetoriim (agg.). Mr. Barclay thinks bushes found by 

 him in Haddington and Banff (v.-c. 82 and 94) belong here. It is 

 difficult either to controvert or confirm this opinion. 



E. SPINOSISSIMA (agg.) X DUMETORUM (agg.) (or CORIIFOLIA ? 



(agg.) ) f . Margerisoni f . no v. Eeluctant though 1 have been to name 

 any new form, especially one of which the parentage is doubtful, I 

 think this form is sufficiently distinct to deserve a name, and its 

 finder tells me there are several bushes. Stem erect, 2-3 ft. high, 

 often reddish ; prickles very numerous, of all lengths, all subulate, 

 mostly declining, often strongly so, or falcate, much fewer and 

 weaker or none on flowering shoots ; leaflets 7-9, dull glaucous 

 green, mucli paler beneath, turning deep reddish in autumn, oval 

 or broadly so, obtuse, rarely subacute or cuspidate, rounded at 

 base, the terminal 12-15 lines long by 8-10 wide, very thinly 

 pilose or pubescent above, more densely so but still thinly beneath, 

 eglandular except for some very small glands towards the base of 

 the midrib ; toothing mostly entire, teeth l)road-based, acuminate ; 

 petioles reddish, densely puberulent, with a few, sometimes very 

 few, glands, unarmed or with a few unequal pricklets ; stipules 

 with long, narrow, lanceolate auricles, tliinly hairy or subglabrous 

 on back, densely glandular-ciliate ; peduncles solitary, 4-6 lines 



