RYDBERG: NOTES ON ROSACEAE 165 
it is unique in the group on account of its densely glandular- 
bristly pedicels. It evidently is a good species unless of hybrid 
origin. It might have been produced by R. Nutkana and R. 
gymnocarpa. 
OREGON: Yainax Indian Reservation, Mrs. Austin. 
CALIFORNIA: Crescent City, Del Norte County, 1912, Eastwood 
2270. 
12. RosA NuTKANA Presl 
Although an easily distinguished species (except from the two 
next following species), it has been mistaken for R. fraxinifolia 
(i.e. R. blanda) and R. Woodsii. It has also been named R. caryo- 
carpa Dougl. and R. Lyalliana Crépin; but these names have not 
been published, except in synonymy. 
13. ROSA MURICULATA Greene 
This is closely related to R. Nutkana and is perhaps not distinct. 
It differs in the thicker and smaller leaves, densely glandular- 
muricate beneath, and in the often corymbose inflorescence. 
As it is more common on the Vancouver Island than the pre- 
ceding species, there may be a possibility that it is the original 
R. Nutkana Presl. In such a case the plant known as that species 
would be without a published name. 
14. Rosa SPALDINGII Crépin 
This has been confused with R. Nutkana but differs in the 
simple-toothed leaflets, which are decidedly pubescent but scarcely 
at all glandular-granuliferous beneath. Dr. Watson merged it in 
R. Nutkana, and this fact probably influenced Crépin to withdraw 
his species. The plant had been recognized before: Borrer in 
Hooker’s Flora included it in R. cinnamomea, which it approaches 
more than any other American species does, differing principally 
in the longer and straight prickles; Nuttall recognized it as a 
species, R. megacarpa, but this name was published only as a 
synonym in Torrey & Gray’s Flora; in the meantime Rafinesque 
had published it as R. macrocarpa Nutt. It is common through 
the northern Rockies as well as the Cascades. 
