THE GENUS ROSA IN THE ‘LONDON CATALOGUE, ED.10 279 
y -ba 
ft. suberecta Ley is said in Mr. Ley’ S japan to be identical with 
&. villosa d. suberecta Woods. Woods described his rose as a 
ened of R. sts _ that is, R. mollis ire Mr. Baker also 
e 
a specimen is too young fo or absolute certainty, but how Mr. Ley 
could draw up his iccanipiten from either ti o me. 
ude 
Oo 
Ley thinks — this staining is confined to his swberecta, he is 
sadly mista 
Phanitions what he calls an Reps form found in 
flowers white but tinged with pink on the outside of two or three 
petals, are not at all uncommon. When full-blown they appear 
entirely white. The tomentosa forms belong to different variations 
and certainly have not all globose fruit. 
. suberecta Ley b. glabrata Ley. This form of the West 
Scotland cannot be united, as is done by Mr. Ley, with the Soondi- 
n . glabrata of Fries. Scheutz made a mistake, as was 
conclusively Leip by Mr. Symers Macvicar, in making the Scot- 
tish rose to be a form of BR. mollis Sm., and now Mr. Ley makes 
with both red and white flowers. Authentic . from Nor- 
way leave no doubt as to what Fries’s rose really is 
. Andreze Ste 
Bull. Herb. eet i 8 and Ro fd Ageia 48). Moreover, Mr. 
description does ree that given in his reference, ie 
while Mr. Ley elt * thorns lak, normally very large,” Besser 
says, “‘aculeis subulatis, rectis. And, again 
g' 
e ~—s ‘enti elliptic,’ while Besser says “ foliolis ovatis, 
acuti 
Rc scens Dum. This is quite wrongly described as having 
" sepals potion and caducous before the ripening of the fruit.” 
There is an evident mistake in Mr. Ley’s reference, but Dumortier 
in his Monographie des Roses de la Flore Belge (1867) describes his 
