Rypserc: NorEs on RosacEAE—XIV 69 
22. Rosa Woopstr Lindl. 
This was published in 1820 in Lindley’s Monograph. Five 
years later Lindley published an illustration in the Botanical 
Register of what he supposed to be the same, but evidently he 
was mistaken. In the Botanical Register (p/. 976) Lindley gave 
the following remarks: 
It was subsequently named and published by the writer of gir’ remarks 
but the specimens which were examined for the purpose, were so im- 
perfect that, upon a comparison of the characters ascribed to the tse with 
fresh specimens, they were ascertained to be materially erroneous; the stipulae, 
which were stated to possess the remarkable peculiarity of being convo- 
lute like those of R. carolina, proving to be, in fact, like those of R 
ucida, 
But in M. de Candolle’s Prodromus a new character is proposed for 
this plant. M. Seringe, by whom the article Rosa was prepared, had an 
opportunity of examining specimens in De Candolle’s Herbarium. And yet 
our original error is still retained by Mr. Seringe, who has added to it more 
than one of his own. He defines the leaflets to be shining, while in fact they 
are the reverse; the sepaie | to be nat which 0 covered with glands; and 
the lower pair of leaflets t = others, and fringed 
with ase a peculiarity which we wrt does not e 
annot dismiss this subject without eee our regret that the 
general fetta of M. de Candolle’s Prodromus should be tarnished by 
an article so inaccurately compiled as the genus Rosa is, in the 2d volume of 
that work. 
These cutting remarks of Lindley’s were wholly unwarranted, 
for Seringe did not assign any new characters that were not 
found in Lindley’s original publication, and it was the latter 
himself that assigned new characters. Let us recite a few lines 
from Lindley’s own description in his Monograph, page 22. 
Leaves without pubescence; eee very narrow and acute, convolute 
and fringed with glands ey Leaflets 7-9, shaped like those of R 
rubella, shining, flat, simple, acute, paler beneath . . Fruit naked, 
ovate, with short, connivent, entire sepals which are true from glands as is 
the peduncle 
From this it is evident that Rosa Woodsii of the Botanical 
Register is not the same as the original one described in Lindley ’s 
Monograph. This carelessness on Lindley’s part has caused a 
great deal of confusion, and it is hard to know what the 
original R. Woodsii was. Some have suggested R. humilis, but 
as the pedicels, hypanthium and sepals were without glands 
and the latter connivent, this suggestion is far from the truth. 
A 
