A LIST OF BRITISH ROSES 19 



agree. Though differing in several respects, it is sufficiently near 

 B. Bousselii Rip. to be included in that species.] 



E. RoussELii Rip. ex Desegl. Cat. Rais. p. 184. This has sub- 

 orbicular, very broad-based leaflets of medium size, glabrous or 

 subglabrous styles, and broadly ovoid fruit. My Cheshire specimen 

 is confirmed by both Sudre and Dingier. A Surrey specimen with 

 almost unarmed stem, white flowers, ochreous green, broadly ovate, 

 slightly irregularly serrate leaflets, reddish glandular sepals, bracts 

 and hispid peduncles, and ovoid hispid fruit, was placed by Sudre 

 to B. fragrans Gren., a name of doubtful group and still more 

 doubtful application, hence best omitted. Though differing con- 

 siderably, it seems to me to come nearest to B. Bousselii Rip. 

 V.-c. 17?, 55, 58. 



R. LiTiGiosA Crep. in Bull. Soc. Bot. Belg. viii. p. 267. A 

 Surrey specimen, from Telegraph Hill, is referred to this species 

 by both Crepin's and Rouy's keys. Sudre also confirms the name, 

 which was the one first applied by Dingier to the Ham Common 

 B. stylosa var. evanida, and to which variety the Telegraph Hill 

 specimen bears a close resemblance. It differs from var. evanida 

 chiefly in its more slender prickles, and its more hemispherical 

 head of stigmas, both of which characters take it further from the 

 Stylosa group than var. evanida, which itself is at most an outlier 

 of that group. The two might almost be combined under the 

 present group. V.-c. 17. 



R. suRCULOSA Woods in Trans. Linn. Soc. xii. p. 228. I can 

 say nothing further about this species than my remarks in E. 

 pp. 50-51. A Hereford specimen {Ley) seems best placed here, 

 but it is not very satisfactory. V.-c. 13, 21, 36 ? 



Leaflets Biserrate. 



[B. verticillacantha Mer. Fl. Par. p. 190. This name is not 

 used by Dingier or Sudre, and in view of Des6glise's opinion 

 (E. p. 52) it is perhaps best excluded. If, however, B. inconsjncna 

 turns out to be synonymous, that name must be dropped in favour 

 of B. verticillacantha.] 



R. iNCONSPicuA Desegl. Cat. Rais. p. 188. This may be re- 

 garded as just biserrate B. andegavensis. The calyx-tube in either 

 appears to be sometimes smooth, sometimes glandular-hispid. 

 V.-c. 3, Wilts, 17, 23 ?, 32, 34 ?, 36, 38, 40, 58, 70, 99, Co. Down ? 



[B. Suherti Rip. ex Des6gl. Cat. Rais. p. 183. This is too near 

 B. inconspicua to be kept up. It is said to differ by its somewliat 

 larger and more biserrate leaflets, more weakly setose peduncles, 

 more elongate fruit, and less hairy styles ; but these differences 

 do not appear in conjunction. The name is applied by both 

 Dingier and Sudre to specimens from Cheshire and Surrey, 

 though Sudre thought one of the Surrey examples was nearer 

 B. recognita Rouy, from the very few setae on the peduncles. 

 This specimen certainly has much the look of B. recognita, but 

 if hispid peduncles have any value, it cannot be that.] 



c 2 



