90 THE BRITISH ROSES 
included in his R. tomentosa several forms of the Sherardi group, 
though he appreciated the differences in typical R. Sherardi. 
A reference to Smith’s specimens corroborates the idea that 
¢ 
and deductions were, however, based upon notes supplied to 
him er.on the specimens in Smith’s and Wo 
. 
herbaria, and on material supplied to him. by British botanists. 
ésé- 
ura 
glise thought, from Mr. Baker’s notes on one of Smith’s specimens, 
which is undoubtedly R. fatida Bast., that it was one of the 
leaflets and deciduous sepals are dl 
first deseription and are distinctly barred by his second, so that 
Mr. Ley’s definition appears to me rather arbitrary. Even if we 
grant that an old aggregate may be shorn of several modern 
S 
fulfilled. Hither there must exist a t -specimen which repre- 
writers on the genus, and not an aggregate. R. tomentosa Sm. 
certainly does not fulfil the first condition, namely, the existence 
of a type-specimen, nor does it to my mind fulfil the second ; thus 
the description still covers an aggregate, and not a well-defined 
species. We cannot turn to Continental authors for a correct 
interpretation of a British speci especially in vi of the 
fact that they have learnt what they know of it from British 
— and no two of them quite agree in their presentation 
en 1% 
I therefore regard R. tomentosa Sm. as an aggregate species, 
covering all those forms of the up which raight or 
hooked prickles, softly | group have straig 
ands, tong or short hispid-glandular peduncles, either solit 
or in considerable clusters, “<a et vdly coral cian 
_ fruit, with refiexed or spreading deciduous sepals. Its softly hairy 
