36 A LIST OF BRITISH ROSES 



only difficulty about it is that it passes by imperceptible degrees 

 into forms without subfoliar glands, which appear to be just as 

 frequent as the type, but which are not distinguishable from 

 B. Garionii; also its large forms run very near B. Borreri. V.-c. 

 3, 16, 17, 21, 32, 36, 40, 57, 58, 62. 



R. TOMENTELLA var. DECiPiENS Dum. in Bull. Soc. Roy. Bot. 

 Belg. xvi. p. 57. This seems to differ from the type, not only in its 

 glandular peduncles, but in its leaflets also being without, or with 

 only very few, subfoliar glands. The Cheshire plant, distributed 



through the Bot. Exch. Club in 1906 as B. rubiginosa x , has 



been referred here by Sudre, and I think perhaps correctly, though 

 I still have a considerable leaning towards my original theory, 

 which is confirmed by Dingier. Two other Cheshire plants, from 

 quite different stations, bear a considerable resemblance to it, 

 even to the mostly abortive fruit. V.-c. 16, 17, 26, 34, 57, 58. 



R. Carionii D^segl. & Gill, in Bull. Soc. Roy. Bot. Belg. xix. 

 p. 34. Though Deseghse places this in his Pubescentes, i.e. 

 Dtimetontm group, it is much nearer to B. tomentella, differing in 

 its leaflets being without subfoliar glands, more oval, i. e. decidedly 

 less broad, its flowering branches unarmed, its flowers almost 

 white, and its styles subglabrous. Dingier refers both my 

 Cheshire specimens to B. Borreri. They are not that, but may 

 very likely be B. tomentella. One of them (see Bot. Exch. Club, 

 1909, p. 373) indeed has a few subfoliar glands, but a different 

 look from tomentella. It was passed by Sudre as B. Carionii. A 

 specimen from Leicester {Vice, Wats. Exch. Club, 1906), passed as 

 B. amblyphylla Rip. by Sudre, seems to me to be just the same 

 thing. V.-c. 3, 17, 55, 58. 



R. SCLEROPHYLLA Schcutz, in Bot. Not. p. 82. This is distin- 

 guished from B. tomentella by its much narrower, more glabrous 

 but often more glandular leaflets, which when typical, are lanceo- 

 late or even narrowed at each end, as in B. agrestis. There is 

 some doubt about some of my specimens. Sudre labelled that 

 from Hereford (Ley) B. hemitricha, and that from Hunts {Ley) 

 B. canina var. pseudo-chimetorum Rouy, which its author says is 

 B. tomentella auct. non L6m., but Dingier considers both to be 

 B. sclerophylla. They have subfoliar glands on the lateral nerves 

 (very few in the Hereford example), but do not look at all like 

 B. tomentella. I should have certainly classified the Hunts speci- 

 men under B. caryophyllacea Chr., with wliich it agrees in the 

 glandular acicles on the flowering branches, and in other details. 

 A W. Kent example was at first thought by Crepin to be 

 B. Pouzini Tratt, but he afterwards named it B. tomentella var. 

 decijnens. It is a very peculiar looking plant, quite different in 

 appearance from B. tomentella, and agreeing closely with the 

 description of B. Pouzini, but that is a South European species 

 not at all likely to occur in Britain. It is perhaps best under 

 B. sclerophylla. V.-c. 16?, 31?, 32?, 36?, 62. 



R. TOMENTELLA var. NiCHOLSONi Chr. in Bot. Exch. Club Rept. 

 1880, p. 16. I have seen nothing which can be referred to this 



