506 24. ROSACER. 
Mr. J. G. Baker. He in his turn has twice again sought to 
improve upon former species-arrangements. In 1864 he published 
his ‘Review of the British Roses, especially those of the North of 
England.’ And in 1869 he brings out ‘A Monograph of the 
British Roses.’ This latter.commences with an account of his own 
personal qualifications for the task, on the ground of long study, 
practical observation, and special facilities for acquiring knowledge 
about our wild roses themselves, and about the ideas and nomen- 
clature of other botanical Dog-rose-fanciers. These qualifications are 
so ample as to have required a full page of close text for the simple 
enumeration of them. Thus, on Mr. Baker's own assurance and 
shewing, it may be held certain that no other English botanist is 
now in so good a position for arranging over again the wild roses of 
this country. 
The essay of Woods was published in the Transactions of the 
Linnean Society of London. The Monograph by Baker appro- 
priately comes forth in the Proceedings of the same Society. Not 
many years ago, an Address by the President of that Society 
informed its Fellows that Authors on Brambles were providing the 
world with waste paper. Apropos of Briars, will another Address 
inform the Fellows that their funds are expended in the same 
serviceable manner? In regard to uncertainty of their species 
Brambles and Briars are in one category; and alike they require 
longer study than the generality of botanists care to bestow upon 
them. The uncertainty is curiously illustrated in Mr. Baker's 
Monograph set against the earlier Linnean paper by Woods. Not 
one of the various species invented by Woods appears to be retained 
as such by Baker. The names of Woods used in the Monograph 
of Baker are there made to represent varieties of more aggregate 
species, or are treated as no better than synonyms, not representing 
even separable varieties. 
The characteristic of the new Monograph is combination of 
species, with severance of varieties; the latter being numerous; 
the former being comparatively few. In the Review of 1864 
Mr. Baker intimated that the dozen roses there treated were what 
he understood as being “species of primary value,” and of which 
he had “seen specimens from the six northern counties of England.” 
Those 12 species, with systyla or stylosa for a thirteenth, were placed 
in 5 chief groups thus :— 
. spinosissima, Sabini, hibernica. 
. mollissima, tomentosa. 
. rubiginosa, micrantha, Borreri, Jundzilliana, cryptopoda. 
. canina,—alone, but including many varieties. 
h. arvensis, systyla. 
In the ‘Monograph’ of 1869 these thirteen are reduced to eleyen 
species; two of those in the middle group being lowered to the 
rank of varieties. And it is further illustration of the uncertainty 
mB wore 
