| 111 
SHORT NOTES. 
ri Wek: 
of &. spinosissima 
— on Barnes Common in July, 1878 ; this I had provisionally 
| abelled R. Ripartii Déségl.? As my attention has to a con- 
ee) 
z 
“—< 
m 
ey 
= 
res 
5 
5 
BS 
oq & 
Fr} 
— 
rs) 
& 
° 
E 
© 
° 
= 
3 
nm 
if] 
@ 
ist 
5 
Oo 
| however, thanks to the kindness of Messrs. H. and J. Groves, who 
‘ Conspectus Flores Kurope,’ places A. Ripartii under R. myri- 
aeantha DC. (which is accorded specific rank), but I follow Mr. Baker 
ne both as mere forms of R. spinosissima L. Orépin, in 
5 timitiz Monographie Rosarum,’ published in ‘Bulletin de la 
on Royale de botanique de Belgique,’ tome viii., p. 262, says, 
cote des fol. et les stip.” The synonymy of this plant is as follows :— 
a fi. Ripartii Déséglise. ‘ Essai Monogr. in mem. de la Soc. Acad. 
eM. et L.’, x., 1861, p. 87 et extr. p. 4 
Rei fi. spinosissima. ‘ Trattinick, Rosarum Monographia,’ i., 118 ; 
F ichenbach, ‘Flora Excursoria’ (1880) ii., 612; Mutel, ‘ Flore 
Tangaise,’ 1., p. 4 5. 
os Ri. pimpinellifolia y. Lloyd, ‘Flore de l'Ouest de la France’ 
- 2 (1861), p. 175.—Grorex NicHonson. 
Tae arrmeom or Auren Species.—The record of Sisymbrium 
ne Fe ? n 
in Dr. y ‘ 
i (p. 8), as a British plant, suggests the query ‘‘ How should our 
en plants be distinguished on their labels at a glance?” I ask 
: e is 
nothing to prevent a host of our aliens being so recorded, if they 
teach continental herbaria, without some mark or sign. It may 
e knowledge of their distribution elsewhere should 
