A LIST OF BRITISH ROSES 35 



and the "bluntly oblong, equally large at each end" fruits of 

 Borrer's description must not be taken too literally. Des^glise 

 considered B. canescens Baker to be synonymous. V.-c. Perth ? 



R. PRUiNosA Baker, Eev. p. 27. Very glaucous leaflets, nor- 

 mally broadly ovate, rounded or subcordate at base, without 

 subfoliar glands, peduncles smooth or very little glandular, and 

 ovoid or subglobose fruit distinguish this species. Except the 

 Tynedale example cited in E. p. 106, 1 have seen nothing agreeing 

 satisfactorily with it. A very hairy leaved form from E. Inver- 

 ness comes nearer to it than anything else. V.-c. 67, 96 ?. 



R. LucANDiANA Des6gl. & Gill, in Bull. Soc. Roy. Bot. Belg. 

 xix. p. 36. I think this had better be referred to this subgroup 

 as suggested in E. p. 89, though I have seen no further specimens 

 than those mentioned on p. 88. V.-c. 3, 63. 



[R. glaiica var. pseudo-cinerea Rouy, Fl. Fr. vi. p. 325. Sudre 

 thinks an E. Ross specimen {MarsJiall) near this. It looks much 

 like Mr. Marshall's E. Inverness R. pruinosa in its densely softly 

 pubescent leaflets, but they are decidedly, though finely, glandular 

 beneath. The fruit is very similar. I do not know Rouy's 

 variety, and as Sudre seemed doubtful about the identity it is 

 best excluded.] 



GROUP TOMENTELLA. 



Some individuals of this group are liable to be mistaken for 

 members of that of Tomentosa. Its more glandular members also 

 rvm near forms of Micrantha, while those with eglandular leaflets 

 are often very difficult to distinguish from the group Dumetorum. 

 No short definition can be given by which the limits of the group 

 may be preserved, and experts often differ on this point. I think 

 it better to follow the continental practice and call this group 

 Tomentella. The naming of a group or subgroup from its oldest 

 member would result in frequent changes with the varying 

 opinions as to its limitations. 



Leaflets Biserrate. 



R. BoRRERi Woods, in Trans. Linn. Soc. xii. p. 210. I now 

 think this must be kept quite distinct from R. tomentella and its 

 variety clecipiens, by the much larger size of all its parts ; its 

 liabit also is much laxer, giving it a very different appearance. 

 Its peduncles are usually, but not always, glandular-hispid, and 

 many or all of its leaflets are sometimes eglandular. The species 

 is generally easily recognizable, but I have an aberrant form from 

 Hunts {Ley), wiiich I had placed to B. Bakeri, a species not 

 known by Sudre, who labels it R. glauca var. pseudo-ramealis 

 Rouy, while Dingier says it is R. suhcoriifolia. I feel sure it is 

 none of these, but a form of Borreri. Most of the specimens 

 lal)ellod R. inodora Borr. (non Fr.) belong liere. V-c. 1(), 17, 18, 

 21, 31, 32, 36, 57, 58. 



R. TOMENTELLA Lem. in Bull. Soc. Phil. Par. p. 95. This is 

 an easily recognized and, I believe, a well-known species. The 



d 2 



