54 THE SCOTTISH BOTANICAL REVIEW 
A List oF BritisH RosEs. By Major A. H. WoL.ey-Dop. 
“Supp. Journal of Botany,” Sept., Oct., Nov., Dec. 1911. 
Ir is a matter for regret that Major Wolley-Dod has been compelled, 
temporarily at least, to lay aside the study of British roses. We 
have in Britain so few workers in this most difficult genus that we 
can ill spare, even for a time, one so enthusiastic and in many 
respects so competent. We hope that his residence abroad may 
thoroughly restore his health, and that he may then resume the study 
with, if possible, even keener zest. 
In this paper he gives a revised list of British roses, including 
names received from Professor Dingler and M. Sudre, with remarks 
of his own upon each species or variety. He also gives a new 
analytical key to the sections, and reprints the group keys from his 
former monographs, but modified and altered in accordance with 
the new views put forward in the present list. An alphabetical index 
concludes the paper. ; 
An enormous amount of labour, conscientiously and in many 
respects very ably performed, was required for the preparation of his 
former treatises, and even the preparation of the present list must 
have been a laborious task, especially when it was done under the 
trying conditions of impaired health, and to some extent against 
time. 
In spite of the experience he has acquired of the thorough 
worthlessness of most of the micro-species of Deséglise and his 
school—finding, as he did in most cases, that authentic specimens 
collected by the authors themselves neither agreed with the descrip- 
tions nor with one another,— Major Wolley-Dod still clings to them, 
and thinks that what we want is not fewer but more names. . It is hard 
to see how confusion can be cleared up by adding more confusion. 
There are a great many things in the present list which call for 
comment, if space were available. Some of them, no doubt, would 
not have appeared if the conditions under which the list was pre- 
pared had been more favourable. I shall refer only to two or three 
which, if left alone, may lead to serious misconception on the part of 
British botanists. 
M. Sudre, who seems to have an unhappy knack, especially when 
away from his micro-species, of making surprising determinations—to 
use a mild term,—named some specimens from Cheshire 2. Burnait, 
Chr., and it is plain that Major Wolley-Dod would have agreed to 
adopt this name; but as Dr. Dingler, who saw one of the specimens, 
declared that it could not be &. Burnati, it is excluded for the 
present. Dr. Dingler “did not say why,” but no one who had read 
Dr. Christ’s paper in the “‘ Journal of Botany” for 1876 on the roses 
of the Maritime Alps would be at a loss to know why. All the 
roses of this district, he tells us, Canineze, Rubiginez, Sepiaceze, bear 
the unmistakable impress of a dry and burning Southern climate. 
“One would say that the Mistral, with its parching breath, has con- 
tracted the leafy organs, that the hot and prolonged exposure to the 
