208 Mr. Woods oti the 'British Species of Rosa. 



smaller ones. In R. Eglanteria the aculei of the shoots, and frc- 

 quentl}' those of the branches, are mixed with scattered prickles 

 of all sizes; though in small specimens this character may some- 

 times be wanting. In both species a few setae may occasionally 

 be noticed on the stem immediately below the inflorescence-; 

 but these seem to be merely accidental. 



Mr. Boner found a Rose in Normandy nearly allied to this, 

 and most resembling the variety /3 ; and Mr. Hooker brought spe- 

 cimens of the same from the South of France; but it has not 

 been described by the French botanists, or at least I cannot ap- 

 propriate to it any of their descriptions. 



This Rose has been very unfortunate in its name ; it is called 

 eglantina, eglentina, and esglcntina, by Bauhin and the early bo- 

 tanists. Linnaeus in his first edition of the Species Plantarum 

 called it R. Eglanteria ; but in the second he transferred that 

 name to the single yellow Rose, still however quoting the same 

 synonyms, all of which clearly belong to this plant. And this 

 species is not given, nor does the name of R. ruhiginosa occur, 

 until the publication of the Mantissa Plantarum altera : indeed it 

 seems as if Linna;us at one time confounded the two species, 

 misled merely by the circumstance of the glandular and fragrant 

 leaf, which is almost the only character not common to the whole 

 genus, in which these two Roses agree. Notwithstanding R.ruhi- 

 ginosa has been adopted by most of the modern botanists, 1 have 

 ventured to restore the name originally given by Linnaeus, in 

 which I am supported by the authority of Hudson and of Poiret, 

 Encycl. Nat. The yellow Rose, which is not a British plant, has 

 latterly been more properly named R. lutea, from the hue, which 

 is very rare in flowers of this genus. 



15. Rosa 



