54 RYDBERG: NOTES ON ROSACEAE 
16. ROSA OBOVATA Raf. 
The first one to give a good description of this species was 
Lindley, who described it in his monograph under the name 
R. laxa. Unfortunately this name was preoccupied by R. laxa 
Retz., for which reason Sprengel substituted R. Lindleyi, also a 
homonym or rather pseudo-homonym, as there was already a 
R. Lindleyana Tratt. Mr. Baker, in Miss Willmott’s Genus Rosa, 
described it as R. humilis grandiflora. There is, however, a 
R. grandiflora Salisb., so the name is not available. The only 
name left to consider is R. obovata Raf. Rafinesque’s description, 
in this case as usually, is far from satisfactory, but ‘‘the single 
large flowers; obovate leaflets, and straight prickles,’’ would 
indicate this species. In many respects it is intermediate be- 
tween R. virginiana and R. carolina, but has comparatively broader 
leaflets than either. The leaflets are rather dull, sometimes 
somewhat glaucous. The following specimens are to be referred 
to it: ‘ 
Marne: Hudson, Briggs; Bangor, O. W. Knight. 
MassacuuseEtts: Nantucket Island, Bicknell. 
RHODE IsLAND: Newport, Mearns 553. 
NEw York: Ithaca, Coville, Pearce; Long Beach, Long Island, 
Bicknell; Lake Ronkonkoma, Bicknell. 
NEw Jersey: Bay Head, Ocean County, Mackenzie. 
PENNSYLVANIA: Raymond’s Kill, Pike County, Nash. 
Missouri: Chadwick, Trelease 185. 
17. ROSA CAROLINA L. 
This name was taken up in the North American Flora for the 
plant described by Linnaeus in the first edition of his Species 
Plantarum. Itis the sameas R. humilis Marsh. and R. parviflora 
Ehrh. See the discussion under R. palustris. Wangenheim 
described it under the name R. pennsylvanica, and Michaux 
changed the form of the name to R. caroliniana. It appears also 
to be R. pratensis Raf. The rest of the synonyms are easily 
explained. 
18. ROSA SERRULATA Raf. 
This is closely related to the preceding species and has usually 
been confused with it. It differs in the double-toothed leaflets, 
