A LIST OP BRITISH ROSES 37 



beyond the type specimen (E. p. 23), though I had provisionally 

 placed a form from Cheshire to it, which I now believe to be 

 B. incerta Desegl., a species to which var. Nicholsoni makes a 

 considerable approach, when the peduncles are smooth or almost 

 so. I have a note that a Surrey plant {Britton) may perhaps 

 belong here, but have no specimen in my herbarium, so the doubt 

 must remain. V.-c. 17 ?, 65. 



[JR. arvatica "Pug." Baker, Monogr. p. 229. I think it best 

 to exclude this name. Baker's plant was certainly not Puget's, 

 and as the latter is (wrongly) kept up on the Continent to cover 

 the plant Puget had in his mind, confusion would only result in 

 the adoption of the name to cover a different plant in Britain. 

 Moreover, I have seen no British plant so labelled that cannot be re- 

 ferred elsewhere, usually to B. agrestis var. subcimeata Eouy. There 

 are, however, forms with too few subfoliar glands for the Agrestis 

 group, which may be placed under either B. scleropkijlla Scheutz, 

 B. tomentella var. Nicholsoni Chr., or B. caryophyllacea Chr.] 



E. CARYOPHYLLACEA Chr. forma (non Bess.) Ros. Schw. p. 122. 

 Two specimens from Catsworth, Hunts (Ley), are considered by 

 Dingier to agree almost exactly with a form of this species, which 

 he believes may be a hybrid with some Buhiginosa form, but to 

 which he has given the name of B. tomentella var. anonyma (ined.) 

 in his herbarium. The form is characterized by the leaflets having 

 an unusual number of subfoliar glands for the group, also slightly 

 hairy midribs, slightly glandular peduncles, ovoid fruit and hispid 

 styles, but its marked peculiarity is the development of short, fine 

 glandular seta3 or acicles on some portions of some of the flower- 

 ing branches. The Catsworth specimens are less extreme than 

 the continental ones Dingier has sent me, having less glandular 

 leaflets and peduncles, and one of them has no glandular develop- 

 ment on the flowering branches. Sudre confirmed my suggestion 

 of B. Blondceana for one of them (in spite of slightly hairy mid- 

 ribs), but labelled the other B. canina var. senticosoides Rouy. I 

 think specimens from Ellington brickfields, Hunts (Ley), Hanwell, 

 Oxon {Druce), and from Geddington Chase and Wadenhoe, North- 

 hants (Ley), also belong here. Specimens from the two latter 

 stations have been distributed through the Exchange Clubs by 

 the late Mr. Ley as B. Borreri, but the Wadenhoe gathering was 

 certainly a mixture of at least two forms, one of which belonged 

 to the Deseglisei subgroup. V.-c. 23, 31, 32. 



[B. Friedlanderiana Bess. Enum. Pod. & Volh. p. 63. Another 

 Hunts specimen {Ley) runs down exactly to this by Keller's synop- 

 sis. Sudre labels it B. rubigmosa var. subapricorum Rouy, but 

 Dingier confirms my suggested name, though he thinks the 

 specimen more glabrous than Besser's species. Except that its 

 midribs appear quite glabrous, it seems to me to be identical with 

 the specimens of B. caryophyllacea gathered by the late Mr. Ley ; 

 its stems are even more densely aciculate. If Besser's plant is 

 really a gallica hybrid, as is generally supposed, its occurrence in 

 Britain is improbable^ except from a garden origin. V.-c. 31.] 



