52 THE SUBSECTION EU-CANINZ OF THE GENUS ROSA 
the mere failure to find a type app be an argument which 
is applicable to several of the older species. Crépin, in his 
‘Revision des Roses de l’herb. Bab * (Journ. Bot. 1896), 
throws no light on the question, but omits both species from his 
key in Prim. Mono uy only mentions RB. iconspicua, so 
that these authors show by inference that they do not under- 
stand Rf. verticillacantha Mér., though there can be no doubt as 
to its being a native of France, as Mérat described it from a speci- 
men from Calvaire. 
The differences between R. verticillacantha Mér. and R. in- 
conspicua Déségl. are set forth on a sheet of the latter in th 
author's herbarium, thus :—‘“ Differs from verticillacantha in 
penne fewer prickles, not arranged in a spiral [this contradicts 
18 Own description of inconspicua, which says, ‘prickles in a 
fro h 
vary considerably in cutting and in glands. The styles are more 
villous than in inconspicua, and the fruit usually ellipsoidal. 
Th 
ambiguity between this species and the next can be cleared up I 
am retaining it in our list. I think, however, they will prove to 
be synonymous, 
