A LIST OP BRITISH ROSES 21 



[E. scahrata Crep. This species, never having been described, 

 is best excluded. Crepin seems to have used it as a group-name 

 only, so far as British specimens are concerned.] 



E. Blond^ana Eip. ex Desegl. Ess. Monogr. p. 133. Usually 

 distinguishable in the British forms of the subgroup by its 

 medium, or rather large, oval leaflets, smooth or very thinly 

 glandular peduncles, subglobose fruit, and hispid styles, but as in 

 most other species, a good deal of latitude seems permissible, or 

 varietal names will have to be used. It is, I think, our most 

 frequent form, and covers most of what was formerly labelled 

 R. manjinata Wallr., as well as the more glabrous forms of 

 R. arvatica Baker. One of my Cheshire specimens has been 

 referred to R. praterita Eip. by both Sudre and Dingier, but the 

 latter remarks that that species is inseparable from R. Blondaana. 

 It is chiefly a northern and western form. V.-c. 34, 36, 38, 43, 

 57, 58, N. Yorks. 



E. viNACEA Baker, Eev. p. 32. Normally this has large 

 elliptical leaflets narrowed at each end, smooth peduncles, ellipsoid 

 or ovoid fruit, and hispid styles, but it is not always easily 

 separable from smooth-peduncled forms of R. Bloiidceana, which 

 sometimes have both leaflets and fruit very like those of B. vinacea. 

 Typical examples appear to be much less frequent than those of 

 R. Blondceana, like which it attains its greatest frequency in the 

 north and west of England. I think it is best to exclude the speci- 

 mens without subfoliar glands mentioned in E. p. 59. V.-c. 58, 62. 



[R. trachyphijUa Gren. Fl. Jur. p. 243. I doubt the policy of 

 introducing this name or var. nuda into our list. At best its 

 description was a misrepresentation of Eau's species, which 

 belongs to quite a different group. The Glen Shee specimen 

 (E. p. 60) may perhaps belong here, but that from Kilvington is 

 best under R. Blondceana.] 



[R. margmata Wallr. I have nothing to add to my remarks 

 in E. p. 60, and this name had better be excluded. Specimens 

 so named are probably all referable to R. Blondceana.] 



E. Beatricis Burn. & Gremli, Eos. Alp. Mar. Suppl. p. 14. 

 Although I have referred to R. vinacea, which it closely resembles, 

 the only specimen to which Sudre has given this name, it may 

 perhaps be retained for certain forms of this subgroup with small 

 leaflets, small peduncles, subglobose fruit, and glabrous or thinly 

 hispid styles. Two or three gatherings from Maiden, Surrey 

 [Britton), I think belong here, the only ones of the subgroup 

 which I liave seen from the south-east of England. One of them 

 is remarkable for having flne glandular acicles on its flowering 

 shoots, like those in the Ruhujinosce, but I do not think it belongs 

 to that subsection. V.-c. 17, 36, 40, 58. 



GROUP DUMETOEUM. 



This is a large and troublesome group. The presence of the 

 smallest quantity of hair on the midribs suffices to mark the dis- 

 tinction between its members and those of tlie group Ca}iina,{\\-\d 



