15 
Rosa  tomentosa ,  Sm.,  var.  pseudo-mollis  E.  G.  Baker. 
Cowleigh  Park,  Herefordshire,  v.c.  36,  4th  July  and  9th  Aug., 
1904. — S.  H.  Bickham.  I  do  not  know  pseudo-mollis ,  but 
this  plant  does  not  remind  me  of  mollis.  The  leaves  are 
perhaps  more  hairy  than  usual,  but  not  more  so  than  in  many 
of  my  specimens  of  tomentosa ,  which  species  also  frequently 
has  equally  persistent  sepals.  Possibly  much  of  our 
so-called  tomentosa  would  be  better  placed  under  mollis. — 
A.  H.  Wolley-Dod.  “I  do  not  remember  where  or  when 
Mr.  E.  G.  Baker’s  pseudo-mollis  was  described ;  and  it  is  not 
given  in  Groves’  Babington  (Man.  ed.  IX.).  But  you  will 
find  there  under  R.  tomentosa  a  var.  cuspidatoides  Crepin 
described,  with  which  your  rose  seems  to  agree  precisely. 
Still  I  have  not  specimens  of  either  variety.  Crepin  did  not 
allow  the  Yorks,  specimens  (which  I  have)  of  var.  cuspida¬ 
toides” — In  lit.  E.F.L. 
R.  canina,  L.,  var.  arvatica ,  Baker.  Bullen  Bank, 
Ledbury,  Herefordshire,  6th  July,  1904. — S.  H.  Bickham. 
This  may  be  rightly  named,  but  I  am  not  clear  as  to  what 
Baker  means  by  his  arvatica.  He  says  “ non  Puget,”  but 
Deseglise  in  his  Cat.  Raisonne ,  p.  269  (1877),  makes  Baker’s 
and  Puget’s  plants  synonymous,  and  classifies  them  in  his 
sub-section  Pseudo-rubiginosa ,  which  have  glands  all  over 
the  under  surface  of  the  leaflets,  such  as  this  plant  certainly 
has  not.  It  matches  very  closely  a  Cheshire  plant,  named 
R.  ccesia  Sm.  for  me  last  year  by  Mr.  Rogers  and  Mr.  Ley, 
except  that  in  the  latter  the  leaflets  are  more  rhomboidal. 
The  paucity  of  prickles  on  the  flowering  branches,  large 
doubly  dentate  leaflets  very  hairy  beneath,  very  glandular 
petioles  and  short  naked  peduncles  are  the  same,  but  R.  ccesia 
should  have  glandular  peduncles  and  sepals  glandular  on  the 
back.  Perhaps  both  plants  should  go  under  R.  canescens 
Baker  =  R.  canina  var.  incana ,  Baker,  and  I  should 
provisionally  label  them  as  such. — A.  H.  Wolley-Dod.  “  I 
agree  to  R.  arvatica ,  about  which  I  should  say  there  could 
be  no  doubt.” — In  lit.  E.F.L. 
R.  arvensis  X  systyla.  Hedge,  Brace’s  Leigh,  near 
Malvern,  Worcestershire,  v.c.  37,  30  June,  1904,  and  22  Oct., 
1:903. — S.  H.  Bickham  and  R.  F.  Towndrow.  I  should  say 
R.  systyla  Bast.  I  see  no  evidence  of  arvensis.  The  shape, 
size,  and  spacing  of  the  leaflets,  and  their  being  more  or  less 
hairy  beneath,  also  the  pinnate  sepals,  short  thick  style 
column,  shape  of  fruit,  and — as  far  as  I  can  judge — colour 
of  petals  all  point  to  systyla. — A.  H.  Wolley-Dod.  This 
