or 
24. ROSACEA. 50 
30 Koehleri 12345 78910111218 - 1516 
31 fusco-ater - 2 5--8 1011 
32 diversifolius 1284567 910 
33 Lejeunii 23 5 7 910 12 
34 pyramidalis 1 5-7 - - 
35 Guntheri 1 3 5 -8 410 
36 humifusus 3 5 7 910111218 15 
37 foliosus 1---5 - sos 
38 glandulosus 23 5 78-10 - + 
39 Balfourianus 1 3845 910 12 14 
40 corylifolius 12345678910 - 13 1516 
41 altheifolius 123145 - 9101112 
42 tuberculatus 2345 8 10 12 
43 czsius 12345678 1011 13 14 
Rubus (glandulosus) obliquus, Wirtgen. 
Provinces 1-3-7-10. Devon. Surrey. Anglesea. N. York. 
An additional species reported by the Rev. Andrew Bloxam, in the 
Journal of Botany, for April, 1870 ; — while these pages are going 
through press. 
Rosa cinnamomea, Linn. 
Provinces- 1011 18. York. Cheviot. Ayr. [12 Cumb.] 
Alien. Cyb. i. 859. New Flora of Northumberland & Durham. 
Rosa lucida, Ehrh. 
Prov. - 12. Cumberland; Phytol. ii. 427. “ Tunbridge Wells.” 
Alien. Cyb.i. 859. Planted in a hedgerow, Keswick. 
Rosa pomifera, Herm. 
Province - 5. Gloucester. Stafford. B. B. R. 210. 
Alien. E. C. report, 1868. Eng. bot. iii. 261. 
Rosa rubella, Sm. 
Province - 11. New Flora of N. D. p. 162. 
Ambiguity. Cyb. i. 355. Baker’s British Roses, p. 208. 
Rose Bakeriane. 
Woods, Smith, Borrer, and others successively tried their skill in 
“descriptions ” and “ revisions” of the British wild roses. Smith 
began with half-a-dozen in 1800, and ended with a score in 1824. 
The species of Woods were more numerous; those admitted by 
Borrer were somewhat less numerous. In 1858 ‘ Bentham’s 
Handbook’ fell back on the very condensed number of five species. 
Which of these botanical writers was nearest to Nature? As in 
the Brambles, so in the Briars, evidently any number of species 
may be made at the option of the individual botanist, say from five 
to fifty. 
The labours of his English predecessors have failed to satisfy 
the re-modelling mind of my much-esteemed friend in botany, 
37 
