A LIST OF BRITISH ROSES 29 



five of these (the only ones in my herbarium) might well be 

 placed to as many different species. V.-c. 36?, 43?, 58?, 65, 69, 

 Northumberland, 78 ?, 79 ? 88 ?, Co. Down ? 



[B. complicata Gren. Eev. Fl. Jur. p. 64. As already stated, it 

 is best to regard this as a synonym of B. subcristata. Even 

 Eouy does not distinguish the two.] 



[B. Beuteri var. viyriodonta Christ, Ros. Schw. p. 167. This 

 name has been applied by Dingier, though with some expression 

 of doubt, to tW'O of my Cheshire forms of B. subcristata, from 

 which the difference lies chiefly in the more fully glandular- 

 biserrate leaflets. Under a similar classification two other Cheshire 

 gatherings and one from Co. Down {Waddell, Wats. Exch. Club, 

 1909) might be referred here, but the difference from B. sub- 

 cristata is not greater than among the specimens of the latter 

 itself, so I hesitate to retain the name at present,] 



R. VENOSA Swartz ex Spreng. Syst. ii. p. 554. Sudre places 

 an E. Ross rose (Marshall) to this species, citing it as " B. glauca 

 Vill. var. venosa (Desegl.) " ; and two Perth specimens (Barclay) 

 agree closely. They both have large, broadly oval, subobtuse 

 leaflets, giving them a very different appearance to other forms of 

 the subgroup. The fruit is not formed in the E. Ross specimen, 

 but its calyx-tube is subglobose, and in this stage the sepals spread 

 considerably^ but will probably rise later. One of the Perth 

 specimens (Barclay No. 15, sent to Wats. Exch. Club in 1908 as 

 B. Bakeri) has ovoid fruit, with suberect sepals, the other is not 

 fully formed, but looks similar. The species looks quite distinct. 

 V.-c. 88, 106. 



R. STEPHANOCARPA Desegl. & Rip. in Mem. Soc. Ac. Maine & 

 Loire, xxviii. p. 115. Distinguished in the subgroup by the 

 primary veins of the leaflets bearing subfoliar glands. None of 

 the four specimens in my herbarium has been seen by Sudre, and 

 only one by Dingier, viz., one from Co. Down (Waddell, Wats. 

 Exch. Club, 1906). Dingier says of this, " B. glauca Vill. var. 

 nov., not var. comiMcata Gren. [which I had named it] . The 

 leaflets are copiously compound, their shape is lanceolate, the 

 lowest with several subfoliar glands." Perth specimens (Barclay) 

 are even more decidedly glandular beneath, and if not actually 

 referable to B. ste2:ihanocarpa as a segregate, they at least fall into 

 a subdivision of the subgroup of which that species is made tlie 

 type by Keller, so I adopt the name provisionally. V.-c. 57?, 88, 

 Co. Down. 



R. FUGAx Gren. Rev. Fl. Jur. p. 64. I have several specimens 

 referable to this as an aggregate, but like most other species in 

 the group it may be subdivided. Only three have been seen by 

 Sudre and Dingier. A Cheshire plant, confirmed by Sudre, is 

 thought by Dingier to be near B,. haberiana Pug., but he does not 

 dissent from the name of B. fiujax. One from Hereford (Ley) 

 was placed by Sudre to B. glauca var. subcuneata Rouy, while 

 Dingier thinks its spreading sepals refer it to var. subcanina, but 

 they seem to me to rise too much. A Co. Down example 



