A LIST OF BRITISH ROSES 25 



R. CANESCENS Baker, Rev. p. 28. I have seen no further 

 specimens of this, and cannot tlierefore add to my remarks in E. 

 pp. 84, 85. It is quite possible that Desegiise is right in con- 

 sidering it to be synonymous with B. liemitricha Rip. V.-c. 62. 



R. HEMiTRicijA Rip. ex Desegl. Cat. Rais. p. 204. Though 

 described as a biserrate B. urbica, with villous glandular petioles, 

 most of my specimens are hardly more than irregularly serrate, 

 and some scarcely that, so that they differ little from B. urbica or 

 B. submitis. My Cheshire specimens, where it seems frequent, 

 have villous styles, as in B. urbica, but they have smaller much 

 less hairy leaflets. An example with still smaller nearly simj^ly 

 serrate leaflets, from Hunts {Ley), is named B. canina var. oxy- 

 ])hyUoides Rouy, and a very similar one from Surrey, B. jactata, 

 both by Sudre, but Dingier calls them both B. liemitricha, which 

 is nearer the mark. An aberrant form from near Shepperton, 

 Middlesex, with many of its sepals suberect, glabrescent styles, 

 and almost uniserrate leaflets, which was distributed by Messrs. 

 Groves as B. iiniAexct Gren., is placed here by Sudre, where it is 

 much more at home than under B. implexa. Two Surrey plants, 

 almost identical with the Shepperton one, were labelled B. sub- 

 mitis by Sudre ; they also are best placed here, but all three may 

 quite likely belong to some undescribed species near B. submitis. 

 V.-c. 3, 17, 21?, 31?, 32, 34, 36, 40, 58, 77?, 79. 



SUBGROUP DESEGLISEI. 



The members of this subgroup are distinguished from those of 

 Eu-dumetoriim by their peduncles being glandular-hispid. There 

 is danger of confusing them with the Stylosce, but less stout 

 prickles, broader bracts and upper stipules, shorter peduncles, 

 and stigmas not in an elongate conical head should distinguish 

 them. 



R. Deseglisei Bor. Fl. Centr. Fr. p. 224. This appears to be a 

 rare segregate in Britain. Besides the one mentioned in E. p. 79, 

 I have only two Cheshire gatherings, confirmed by both Sudre 

 and Dingier, and I have seen specimens from Hereford, Hunts, 

 and Northants (all Ley). The leaflets in my specimens are of 

 medium size, oval or broadly so, very thinly hairy above, more 

 densely so beneath, and the peduncles are thinly glandular-hispid, 

 not hairy. V.-c. 3 ?, 31, 32, 36, 58, 65. 



R. iNCERTA Des6gl. Cat. Rais. p. 215. Chiefly distinguished 

 from B. Deseglisei by its leaflets being glabrous above, and hairy 

 on primary nerves or midribs only beneath ; they are also slightly 

 biserrate. I have only one specimen so named by Dingier, which 

 is equally near 7/. Burnati, to which Sudre placed it. It has the 

 prickles of B. Burnati, but differs from both that and B. inccrta 

 in its uniformly serrate leaflets and thinly hispid styles. I place 

 here all my specimens named B. Burnati by Sudre, as well as 

 others I bad so named, though some of the Hereford examples 

 approach those referred to under A', imitata, but with ovoid rather 

 than elhpsoid fruit. V.-c. 10, 32, 36, 40, 57 ?, 58, 62. 



