82 THE BRITISH ROSES 
by which feature alone it can very often be sae Stipules 
broad, very often subglabrous, varying from. smooth to densely 
glandular, often reddish, especially towards thie petioles, auricles 
very variable, but usually rather long and acuminate. Peduncles 
oderate to rather long, strongly and often densely glandular- 
hispid or setose. Sepals long and broad, spreading erect, persistent, 
not conniyent, with many broad pinne, inuch glandular on the 
back. Fruit mostly glandular-hispid or sometimes setose, rather 
rarely quite smooth, when young ovoid or even ellipsoid, more 
t ave 
setose pedu niiglon in ‘alare ers and long s cpuieilitg. dark ee with 
Sot ates Pi nn Mr. Ley considers his species to be identical 
h Woods’s No. 30 R. villosa 3 suberecta trom Ingleton, ~~ 
Paget cough, Yorks. I rather doubt the identity, but adm 
some similarity. Woods’s specimen differs in its peti 
straight long slender prickles, small very close-set leaflets, per- 
iat globose calyx-tube and entire sepals. All these FO a 
point to a close affinity wit eudo-rubiginosa Lej. It 
resembles A. rt however, in its densely armed petioles and 
its red colouri 
ost of the ‘specimens in Mr. Bailey’s herbarium, which a 
now named &. swberecta by Mr. Ley, had been labelled R. abies 
aker and other botanists. Five had been labelled 
R. tomentosa, an 
R. Doniana, but neither of them have flowers or fruit. The best 
forms of Rf. suberecta come from W. Sutherland, Easterness, 
. Elgin, E. Ross, 8. Northumberland, N.E. Yorks, and London 
derry, but Mr. Ley records it as far south as Carnarvon and Derby: 
Rosa SUBERECTA var. GLABRATA 
Ley in Journ. Bot. 1907, p. 206. 
“ Leaves glabrous on es surfaces ; ; subfoliar glands few; 
petioles, =. and fruit as in 
This see simply pa Shae oa suberecta, but the 
only eectiiens I have seen have more widely spaced, narrower, 
wit i 
decidedly more acuminate leaflets, deeper serration than in 
the type; in fact, much more tomentosa-like except for — of 
hair. The fruit also is more broadly ovoid, so oe, nearly 
approach to Mr. Ley’s description of “ subglobo 
According to Cinin (see Journ. Bot. 1895, p. > 344), our aE 
was wrongly assigned by Schultz to R. mollissima var. glabrat 
Fries, ai a use he —— it to be a tomentosa ata 
There has, s however, been so much confusion in the past over the 
