A LIST OP BRITISH ROSES 11 



better to use this and most of these old names in an aggregate 

 sense only. I have but a single specimen placed to this species by 

 Dingier, and that only as "a form," while Sudre believes it to be 

 B. insignis, for which it seems too uniformly serrate. This speci- 

 men is from Surrey, and I have seen a few others which I think 

 must go here, but they have not been verified. If a segregate be 

 kept up at all, it should be one which possesses no striking 

 features beyond those of the subgroup — that is, its leaflets should 

 be large, uniserrate, and glabrous, petioles smooth and almost or 

 quite eglandular, peduncles smooth, fruit ovoid, neither globose 

 nor much elongate, and styles hispid, neither villous nor glabrous. 

 Any departure from these characteristics at once removes the 

 specimen to a different variety, species, or even group. V.-c. 13, 

 17, 20, 36, 55, 62, 65, 70. 



[B. canina var. nitens Desv. Journ. de Bot. ii. p. 114. This is 

 merely a shining-leaved form. A specimen from Surrey was 

 placed here by Sudre, but I prefer Dingler's opinion that it is only 

 a form oi B. sjjhcerica.] 



E. CANINA var. glaucescens Desv. /. c. This differs from the 

 type in its hairy petioles, as well as its glaucous foliage. Sudre 

 thought a Cheshire specimen ought to be referred here, but 

 Dingier thought it was B. separabilis. On the whole, I think 

 Sudre is right. I have not seen it from other vice-counties. 

 V.-c. 58. 



E. FALLENS Desegl. Cat. Eais. p. 149. This is very near the 

 last, but has not glaucous leaflets. V.-c. 17, 36, 55, 58 ?. 



E. SPH^RICA Gren. in Arch. Fl. Fr. & All. p. 333. If one may 

 judge from the number of individuals, this is quite the commonest 

 of the large-leafleted forms of the group. The globose fruit is its 

 best distinction, but its petioles are often villous, making it near 

 B. fallens or var. glaucescens. Dingier admits some quite small- 

 leafleted forms into the species, but I think, with Sudre, that they 

 are better placed under B. aciphylla or B. senticosa. Sudre has 

 applied the name B. canina var. chloophylla, as a new varietal 

 one, to a Cheshire form with very large, shallowly but widely 

 serrate leaflets. Dingier also thought it to be a new form, though 

 it hardly differs from the type in other respects. I do not think 

 Sudre has published it, so I merely mention it here. V.-c. Corn- 

 wall, 14, 17, 36, 58. 



Leaflets Medium. 



E. SEPARABILIS D6segl. in Bull. Soc. Bot. Belg. xix. p. 30. 

 This is quite the commonest form in the subgroup, at least in 

 Surrey and Cheshire, and may be regarded as a small-leafleted 

 form of B. lutetiana. The combination of leaflets narrowed at 

 both ends, often deeply and coarsely toothed, hispid styles, ovoid 

 fruit, and rose flowers will distinguish it from its close allies. 

 D6s6glise lays great stress on the remarkable absence of prickles, 

 but if Sudre and Dingier are to be trusted, they are by no means 

 always very few. V.-c. 17, 32, 58. 



