REPORT FOR 1912. 



247 



one of many spots where it grows by Tweedside. ? V.-c. 79, Oct. 5, 

 1912. — T. M. Hayward. " Dr Thellung suggests comparing these 

 specimens with the sub-species noim zelandiae (Kirk), Bitter." — 

 G. C. Druce. 



Poterium polygamum, Waldst. and Kit. Fallow field on chalk, 

 Royston, v.-c. 20, July 4, 1912. This is larger, and flowers a month 

 or three weeks later than the common P. Sanguisorha. When the 

 specimens were collected, July 4, P. Sanguisorha was quite over; in 

 only a very few cases were fruits even to be found. — R. S. Adamson. 

 "Is var. platylophum, Druce = P. platylophum^ Jord." — J. A. 

 Wheldon. 



Rosa ~ % [Ref. No. 786.] By the Beverley, Coombe, Surrey, 



July 25, 1912. This rose, whilst it is not quite so glandular as my 

 No. 8:38, is, I believe, the same form. — C. E. Britton. This, by its 

 hairy leaflets, connects the last gathering with the plant placed by 

 Dingier to his unpublished name of R. tomenteUa, var. anonyma^ 

 which he considers to be a form of R. caryophyllacea, Chr. (see p. 37, 

 List of Brit. Roses). Though plants with glabrous and with pubescent 

 leaflets are very rarely classed together by rhodologists, there is little 

 doubt about the close affinity between Mr Britton's Nos. 786 and 858, 

 but whether they are better placed in the Scnbrata sub-group of group 

 Canina or in group Tomentella is open to question. — A. H. W.-Dod. 

 " Styles thinly hispid ; fruit globose. Under R. i7ico7ispicua, Desegl., 

 as defined by Wolley-Dod in Journ. Bot., 1911, Suppl., p. 19." — 

 E. S. Marshall. 



Rosa 'I [Ref. No. 838.] Open ground, Maiden, Surrey, Aug. 



1 9, 1 9 1 2. I believe this is identical with the plant referred to by Major 

 Wolley-Dod, in his List of British Roses, under R. Beatricis, Burn, and 

 Gremli. Major Wolley-Dod may possibly be right in hesitating to 

 refer this rose to the Ruhiginoscv, but it can hardly be placed in his 

 group of Canina, if due regard is paid to the hairy mid-ribs of the 

 leaflets. Besides the possession of setae below the inflorescence, this 

 rose is remarkable for the glands (most prominent in the living plant) 

 on the lower surface of the leaflets being not confined to the mid-ribs 

 and principal veins, but scattered all over the surface. — C. E. Britton. 

 " Both these roses seem to me to belong to the same group as the 

 Ashton rose sent to the Club last year by Mr Druce under the name 

 of R. caryophyllacea, Chr. forma (see note in last year's Report, p. 87). 

 To it also belong roses distributed by the late Rev. Mr Ley, from 

 Catsworth and one or two other places, under the name of R. Borreri, 

 Woods, var. I consider Mr Ley's diagnosis as correct, and that both 

 the above and the others I have mentioned form a group of variations 

 belonging to R. Borreri, Woods {E. tomentella, Lem.). Dr Dingier 



