52 RYDBERG: NOTES ON ROSACEAE 
New Yorx: South Beach, Staten Island, Burnham 746; 
New Dorp, Kearney; Eastport, Schrenk. 
VirGciniA: Marion, NV. L. & E. G. Britton & A. M. Vail. 
13. ROSA NANELLA Rydberg 
Mr. E. P. Bicknell collected a small rose on the sand-dunes of 
Chappaquiddick Island, east of Martha’s Vineyard, Massachu- 
setts, which was described in the North American Flora under 
this name. It is related to R. carolina, but smaller, has smaller 
leaflets, smaller fruit, and short, usually curved prickles. It also 
resembles R. nitida, especially in the small shining leaflets, but 
the latter are fewer in number and more obovate, and its prickles 
are different. The following specimens belong here: 
MASSACHUSETTS: Chappaquiddick Island, Bicknell. 
New York: Peconic River, Long Island, N. Taylor; Smith's 
Point, Fire Island, Z. L. Morris; Oak Island, N. Taylor. 
14. ROSA VIRGINIANA Mill. 
This has usually been regarded as a synonym of R. blanda. 
This may have been due partly to the fact that Miller described 
R. virginiana as unarmed, partly perhaps to the fact that at least 
one of the specimens on which R. blanda was originally based 
belonged to the species here treated. Another character assigned 
to R. virginiana by Miller, viz., ‘‘the shining leaves,’ does not very 
well apply to R. blanda as usually understood. The name R. 
virginiana Mill. was substituted for R. lucida Ehrh. in the New 
Gray’s Manual by Robinson and Fernald. I therefore wrote to 
Professor Fernald, asking him kindly to let me know the reasons 
for the change made. In answer I received the following letter, 
which I take the liberty of publishing: 
Rosa virginiana Miller, Gard. Dict. ed. 8, no. 10 (1769), is represented by a fine 
sheet in the herbarium of the British Museum, marked ‘Rosa virginiana Mill. 
Dict. No. 10!” James Britten and J. G. Baker who called my attention to it say 
there is absolutely no question about its authentity. There are three fruiting 
branches and they are perfectly good R. lucida Ehrh. Crépin recognized it and has 
written on the sheet “ R. lucida Ehrh. Cr.” and J. G. Baker (Jour. Linn. Soc. XX XVII. 
74) in his Revised Classification of Roses so treats it. I took a photograph—an 
excellent one nearly life-size—and it shows the characteristic broad-base and 
curved infra-stipular prickles at two points. 
