48 A LIST OF BRITISH ROSES 



is connected by intermediate forms with the type. The distribu- 

 tion of tlie species is much more general than that of B. Eglan- 

 teria (agg.), but I only cite' vice-counties from, which I have 

 actually identified it, or have records of it by good authority, 

 though I cannot always distinguish it ivomB.permixta. V.-c. 11, 

 13, 14, 17, 26?, 32?, 58, 80. 



E. PERMixTA D6segl. Ess. Monogr. p. 107. This is very near 

 the last, and when it is considered how much all species are liable 

 to vary, it ought to be regarded as no more than varietally distinct, 

 and often is not separable at all. I think perhaps that most of 

 our B. micrantha might be referred here, and it certainly is the 

 commoner species on the Continent. Less hairy leaflets, and 

 more prickly flowering branches, with the fruit more constantly 

 smooth, are about the only tangible dilTerences. None of the 

 specimens referred to in Fl. Kent, p. 135, belong here. Some 

 have been placed to B. apricorum, and others will be mentioned 

 under var. tricliocaiya. There is, however, little doubt that both 

 B. micrantha and B. jjermixta may be found all over the chalk 

 range, as well as in many other counties in the kingdom. V.-c. 3, 

 5, 17, 22, 34, 55. 



R. MICRANTHA var. TRiCHOCARPA Rouy, Fl. Fr. vi. p. 363 (non 

 Boullu). This name has been applied by Sudre to a Surrey 

 specimen with acicles on the flowering stem just below the in- 

 florescence, and also a very few on the main stem, accompanied by 

 a more broadly ovoid, hispid fruit. Except for the broadly ovoid 

 fruit, it might be regarded as a somewhat aciculate-stemmed B. 

 micrantha. Another gathering, with a strongly aciculate stem, 

 which I thought might be B. micrantha x Eijlanteria, is referred 

 by Sudre to B. micrantha, but it seems to agree very well with the 

 last named. One of the Upper Hailing plants and that from 

 Boxley, referred to on p. 135, Fl. Kent, as B. permixta, are best 

 referred here, though their fruit is quite ellipsoid. Eouy's variety 

 is not synonymous with that of Boullu, as the former author 

 states. Cariot's description in Etudes des Fleurs, ed. 8, p. 278, 

 makes var. trichocarpa Boullu a mere variety of B. micrantha 

 having subglobose hispid fruit, and does not mention acicles on 

 the stem. V.-c. 15, 16, 17. 



R. HYSTRix L6m. in Bull. Sc. Soc. Phil. Paris, p. 95. Small, 

 elliptical leaflets, wedge-shaped at the base, are the chief feature 

 of this species. It should also have hooked prickles and sub- 

 globose fruit. I have not seen typical examples from Britain, 

 D6s6glise's specimens being both so untypical as to have been 

 wrongly referred here, I think. A Dartford, W. Kent, specimen 

 is nearer the type, as also are two from Leatherhead, one of which 

 was named B. jMrvula Gren. and the other B. diminuta Bor. by 

 Sudre. V.-c. 16?, 17?, 80?. 



R. MICRANTHA var. Briggsii Baker, Monogr. p. 222. This 

 variety still seems to be confined to the neighbourhood of Ply- 

 mouth. V.-c. 3. 



