REPORT FOR 1913. 



467 



Rosa ? Dovedale, Derbyshire, Aug, 22, 1913. This rose, for 



which I have not yet received a determination from Dingier, is, I 

 beheve, the one which has been labelled R. caesia Sm. by several 

 collectors. It has little in common with that species, except more or 

 less hair}'- leaves, and hispid peduncles, but quite lacks the habit and 

 woolly styles. This bush was 8-9 ft. high, with the habit of strong 

 canina forms. Similar bushes are quite common all over the adjacent 

 country, and it may deserve a distinctive name. — A. H. Wolley-Dod. 



Rosa andegavensis Bast. [Ref. No. 1114.] North Downs, South 

 of Horsley, Surrey, v.-c. 17. — C. E. Britton. "Yes, the typical 

 form with hispid styles." — A. H. Wolley-Dod. 



Rosa adscita Desegl. [Ref. No. 1090.] Open ground. Maiden, 

 Surrey, v. c. 17, Aug. 20, 1913.— C. E. Brittox. " Correct."— A. PI. 

 Wolley DOD. 



Rosa fiietida Bast. [Ref. No. 1116.] Downs, South of E. Horsley, 

 Surrey,' Sept. 7, 1913. The examples I send under this name 

 differ from descriptions of R. foetida, in possessing hairy styles. Other- 

 wise they seem to me to agree with descriptions of Bastard's species. 

 — C. E. Britton. " Probably correct, but with hairy styles. It 

 differs from R. scahriuscula Sm. in the presence of sub-foliar glands, 

 and from R. tomentosa, var. sylvestris Woods in its more hairy and less 

 glandular leaflets and straightish prickles." — A. H. Wolley-Dod. 



Rosa Rothschildii Druce. Maiden, Surrey, 1911, These examples 

 seem identical with the rose from the same locality identified by Mr 

 Druce as belonging to his species (See Rejwrt for 1912, p. 157). — 

 C. E, Britton. " This is certainly correct,"— A. H. Wolley-Dod. 



Pyrus Fyraster L. Solitary tree, Stanway, v.-c. 19, April 24, 

 1913. A tradition exists that until 40-50 years ago this tract of 

 land was unenclosed heath with scattered cottages. This tree stand- 

 ing beside the present road may well have been in one of the cottage 

 gardens. However, the fruit has quite reverted to the wild type, and 

 the tree is very large, though apparently not of great age. Height 

 about 50 feet. Despite all precautions I have been unable to keep 

 these specs, a good colour — G. C. Brown, " The P. comiminis L. 

 var. Pyraster (Boreau)." — G. C. Druce. " The nomenclature of the 

 varieties of Pyrus communis has been much confused. The name 

 Pyraster is applied to both glabrous and hairy leaved plants. Mr 

 Brown's specimens have the adult leaves glabrous, which makes it P. 

 Pyraster Bor,, but as a variety of P. communis L. the proper 

 citation is P. communis, var, Pyraster Wallr. Sched. crit., p. 214 ( 1822) 

 = P. Achras Gaertn.. now P. communis, var. Achras Wallr. The 

 descriptions in the British Floras require emendation." — Ed. 



