452 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 



In concluding this note it will be of service to summarise in what 

 the classification of Mr. Baker differs from that of M. Crepin with regard 

 to the allocation of the species to the different sections. 



To begin with, Mr. Baker includes in a single section, under the name 

 Systylce, Sections I. and II. of M. Crepin. From a horticultural point of 

 view this is of no great importance, as Rosa stylosa is almost destitute of 

 ornamental interest. 



Mr. Baker places M. Crepin's Section III. (the Teas and Bengals) with 

 the Canine?, because he has taken no account of the free exserted styles 

 which are distinctive of Rosa indica (fig. 126) and R. semper flor ens, 

 whereas the Dog Roses have free included styles. 



He couples R. laevigata with R. Banksice, whereas it differs from the 

 latter in having leaves composed of three leaflets, and its sepals erect 

 instead of re flexed. 



Mr. Baker's group of VUlosce is merged by M. Crepin with the 

 Canince, the only difference being that the thorns are stronger, which is a 

 characteristic of little moment. 



Amongst the Cinnamomece Mr. Baker has included the types which 

 M. Crepin has used in making the following distinct sections : 



1. The Carolina (Section VII.), whose sepals are horizontal instead of 

 being erect. 



2. The Microphyllce (Section XV.), on account of the ovaries being 

 always inserted on a mound at the bottom of the receptacle. 



3. The Sericece, on account of their tetramerous flowers. 



On the other hand, many species placed by Mr. Baker among the 

 P impinellifolice are transferred by M. Crepin to the Cinnamomece 

 (Section VIII.). Those which are described as of these two groups are very 

 distinct on account of their thorns and their inflorescence. 



Mr. Baker has included the yellow Roses (lutea and sulphured) with 

 the Rubiginosce, from which they differ both in their colour and in 

 having their sepals erect instead of reflexed. 



