﻿22L 



recognised; and expresses the hope that some English botanist 

 will undertake the preparation of a new monograph brought up to 

 the present level of knowledge. He then gives the following list of 

 the species under which he would group the British forms .*— 



Sect. i. Synstyla. Subsect. Rubigmosa. 



R. arvensis Huds. R. rubiginosa L. 



Sect. ii. Stylos®. R. micrantha Sm. 



R. stylosa Desv. R. septum Thuill. 



Sect. iii. Canina}. ? R. graveolens Gren. 



Subsect, Eu-canina. Subsect. Tomentosa. 

 R. canina L. R. tommtosa Sm. 



R. obtusifolia Desv. (incl. Subsect. Villosas. 

 R. tovientella L.). R. mollis Sm. 



Prof. Crepin considers R. hibernica, Sm. and R. involuta, Sm. 

 hybrids, and, referring to the list in the Lond. Cat., rejects R. 

 sylvieola, R. col Una, /,'. Knsinsnaaa, and /.'. uiarginata as not British, 

 being hybrids between R. yallica (which does not occur in Britain) 

 and li. mbiyinuxa and R.' canina. He points out that even R. 

 arvensis lias not escaped confusion, its variety gallicoides having 

 been included under R. stylosa. Attention is drawn to the im- 

 portance of a completely new census of the geographical distri- 

 bution of the genus, the account in the Topog. Bot. being largely 

 based upon unreliable Floras and Catalogues. 



Prof. Crepin then proceeds to give some very useful notes on 

 the various species. Of R. canina he says that forms of it are often 

 confounded with R. glauca, and in addition to the principal cha- 

 racter by which he separates them, viz., the sepals becoming reflexed 

 in fruit, as against the erect persistent sepals in R. glauca, he states 

 that the peduncles of R. glauca are ordinarily shorter, the flowers 

 are usually of a deep rose-colour, and the bush usually dwarfer. 

 He considers the name R. obtusifolia should stand for a subordinate 

 species, including the doubly serrate R. tomentella, as well as the 

 simply serrate plant usually known as obtusifolia. Under R. glauca 

 he states that R. coriifolia is the pubescent state, as R. dumetnrum 

 is of R. canina, and he considers that R. glauca should be ranked as 

 a subordinate species, and not as a variety of R. canina, as most 

 British botanists have regarded it. Under R. rubiginosa he points 

 out that R. permixta, Desegl., included under this species in 

 Lond. Cat., is undoubtedly a var. of /<'. micrantha. He questions 

 the occurrence in Britain of R. graveolens, Gren., which occurs, in 

 the form R. inodora, Fries, in Germany and northwards, where it 

 takes the place of R. septum. He considers the present classification 

 of the varieties of R. tomentosa unsatisfactory, and discusses the 

 probability of their being grouped under two or more subordinate 

 species, as in the case of R. canina. In conclusion, Prof. Crepin 

 expresses his readiness to assist British botanists in the determina- 



