88 
Rosa  pimpinellifolia,  L.  x  mollis ,  Sm.  Kinfauns, 
E.  Perth,  v.c.  89,  July  20,  1900.  (See  “Annals  of  Scottish 
Nat.  Hist.”  for  1896,  middle  of  p.  118).  In  addition  to 
what  is  said  there  of  this  rose,  I  may  add  that  subsequently 
I  sent  specimens  in  flower,  and  that  the  final  decision  of 
Crepin  was  as  follows:  “Je  pense  comme  vous  que  c’est 
bien  le  R.  pimpinellifolia  x  mollis .”  Of  the  correctness 
of  this  determination  I  have  no  doubt,  but  there  are  some 
forms  of  the  hybrid  formerly  known  as  R.  involuta,  Sm., 
of  which,  even  studying  them  on  the  living  bush,  I  have 
found  it  impossible  to  decide  whether  the  second  parent 
was  R.  mollis  or  R.  tomentosa ,  Sm. — W.  Barclay.  Leaf- 
back  glandular,  therefore  recondita  or  ccerulea  must  be 
one  of  the  parents. — A.  Ley.  Clearly  a  hybrid  of  R.  mollis 
(aggregate)  with  R.  pimpinellifolia.  The  former  parent 
cannot  be  ccerulea ,  which  has  the  fruit  nearly  or  quite 
naked ;  in  this  plant  the  fruit  is  densely  glandular-hispid. 
— E.S.M.  Undoubtedly  correct ;  but  I  do  not  know  these 
hybrids  well.  Does  not  the  prickly — not  merely  bristly — 
fruit  point  to  mollis  and  not  to  tomentosa  as  the  second 
parent  ? — A.H.W.-D. 
R.  involuta,  Sm.,  var.  Wilsoni  (Borr.).  Cult.  Ledbury, 
July  1906.  I  brought  the  plant  from  Menai  Strait,  Bangor. 
The  sea  is  washing  away  the  bank  on  which  it  grows  and 
there  is  every  prospect  of  the  plant  being  lost.— S.  H. 
Bickham.  Crepin  referred  my  wild  herbarium- specimen 
of  this  to  R.  pimpinellifolia  x  tomentosa. — E.S.M.  This 
rose,  which  I  take  to  be  a  hybrid  of  pimpinellifolia  x 
tomentosa,  is  much  nearer  to  the  former  than  most  forms 
of  the  same  hybrid.  I  have  only  seen  one  which  in  some 
respects  is  nearer  still  to  pimpinellifolia.  It  was  sent 
to  me  by  the  Rev.  A.  Ley,  and  was,  I  believe,  first  dis¬ 
covered  by  the  late  Mr.  Purchas.  It  differed  from  var. 
Wilsoni  chiefly  in  being  totally  destitute  of  glands  on 
peduncle,  fruit  and  back  of  calyx. — W.  Barclay. 
R.  tomentosa,  Sm.  Shoulder  of  Mutton  Hill,  Leics., 
v.c.  55,  Aug.  1906.  This  rose  is  from  a  bush  by  the  side 
of  a  farm  road.  It  first  caught  my  eye  on  account  of  its 
very  deeply  coloured  flowers.  When  I  went  to  collect  it  I 
found  the  bush  broken  down  and  very  nearly  destroyed 
by  the  hay  carts  having  been  drawn  over  it.  However,  I 
secured  a  few  fruits.  The  leaves  are  very  downy  and  the 
