Feb. 1894.] BOTANICAL SOCIETY OF EDINBUKGH. 139 



have seen at Kinlochewe, etc. The var. glahrata, Fries. 

 (E. F. Linton), Strome Ferry, 1886, not previously noticed 

 in Britain. 



* R TOMENTOSA, Sm. — Common in the lower glens, and 

 very variable. Of the named forms I have collected E. 

 scdbriuscula, Sm., at Applecross and Ullapool ; the var. 

 R. syhcstris, Woods, at Kinlochewe and Ullapool ; var. 

 cKspidatoides, Lej., at Achnashellach. The latter collected 

 by Rev. H. E. Fox in 1893. 



* E. CANINA, L. — The aggregate plant is common in the 

 low lands. Of the named British forms I have gathered 

 B. lutetiana, Lem., in many localities. The flowers of this 

 and other varieties of the dog rose are often darker than 

 our Midland plants. B. chimalis, Bechst., see Eep. of Piec. 

 Club (Lintons, Bailey), Gairloch and Strome Ferry. It is 

 one of the common forms of the non-cristate canina. I noted 

 it in 1880 at Loch Alsh, in 1887 at Kinlochewe, and this 

 year I found it commonly at Ullapool. E. urhica, Lem. — 

 Applecross and Strathcarron, E. tomcnteUa, Lem. — L'^Ua- 

 pool. E. glauca, Vill. — Common and variable. M. Crepin 

 writes to me " that E. glauca and E. coriifolia, Fries., 

 have not been sufficiently studied in Britain. These two 

 secondary species may be met with at lower levels, but 

 they prefer higher situations or else more or less northern 

 lands. A complete series of their variations will doubtless 

 be found in Scotland." A plant which, in the opinion of 

 our British authorities, would be called var. subcristata, 

 M. Crepin refers to E. glauca, of which he considers it to 

 be a form with compound teeth, and smooth sepals. A 

 conspicuous rose at Applecross, which is, I think, a distinct 

 variety from any of our named forms, M. Crepin says is 

 a variety of E. glauca, with simple teeth and glandular 

 pedicels and sepals. It may be worth distinguishing as 

 var. glanchdosa. E. coriifolia, Fries. — This is a common 

 Eoss rose. A very pubescent form occurred at L^llapool ; 

 in fact, were it not for its subcristate sepals, it would now 

 come under E. toinentella, according to our insular ideas. 

 M. Crepin keenly remarks " that as we go northwards 

 forms of E. canina are replaced by forms of E. glauca 

 and E. coriifolia^ A very curious rose from Ullapool, 

 which I half thought might be a form of E. dccijjiens, is 



