90 
Leaves  simply  serrate  (or  nearly)  ;  sepals  falsely  persistent ; 
thorns  uncinate  :  R.  subcanina.  or  andegavensis-- A.  Ley. 
I  agree  with  Mr.  Ley  in  thinking  this  plant  has  nothing  to 
do  with  R.  tomentosa,  and  it  equally  certainly  is  neither 
R.  andegavensis ,  which  has  leaves  glabrous  beneath,  nor 
R.  subcanina,  which  has  eglandular  peduncles.  It  is  one 
of  Deseglise’s  section  Collinae,  which  includes  Crepin’s 
group  Deseglisii.  This  is  a  section  I  have  not  studied,  but 
it  seems  to  me  to  be  very  near  R.  dumetorum ,  var.  pseudo- 
collina,  Christ,  which  is  the  R.  collina  of  most  authors, 
not  of  Jacquin.  This  is  not  the  same  as  Christ’s  var. 
sub-collina,  which  is  a  variety  of  R.  coriifolia,  Fr. — 
A.  H.  W.-D.  Material  not  well  prepared.  The  petioles 
and  undersides  of  the  leaves  are  very  hairy ;  so  it  cannot 
be  either  andegavensis  or  subcanina.  May  it  not  be  a 
tomentosa  form  crossed  with  canina  ?  I  think  that  not 
improbable,  from  the  characters. — E.S.M.  The  specimen 
I  have  received  has  no  prickles,  and  is  otherwise  poor,  so 
that  I  will  not  venture  to  say  what  it  is  till  I  see  better 
specimens,  which  should  be  gathered  later  in  the  season. 
It  is  certainly  neither  subcanina  nor  andegavensis,  which 
have  glabrous  leaflets.  If  it  is  a  tomentosa  it  is  not 
scabriuscula,  Baker. — W.  Barclay. 
R.  micrantha,  Sm.  Old  Quarry,  Quorn,  Leics.,  v.c. 
55,  Oct.  11,  1906.— Coll.  G.  Frisby.  Comm.  F.  L.  Foord- 
Kelcey.  “Yes.” — A.  Ley,  W.  Barclay,  E.S.M. 
R. - ?  (flowers  white).  Blaby,  Leics.,  v.c.  55, 
July  10  and  Oct.  1,  1906. — W.  A.  Vice.  I  cannot  name 
this. — A.  Ley.  Though  not  typical,  I  think  this  may  be 
a  luxuriant  form  of  R.  tomentella  Leman. — E.F.L.  This 
is  a  variation  of  R.  tomentella,  Lem.  Serrations  less 
compound  and  leaflets  less  rounded  than  in  the  usual 
form. — W.  Barclay.  One  of  Deseglise’s  section  Pubescentes 
of  the  Caninae,  and  among  British  plants  nearest,  I  think, 
to  R.  canescens,  Baker,  but  by  its  white  flowers  and  almost 
glabrous  styles,  and  leaves,  or  at  least  some  of  them 
resembling  those  of  R.  obtusifolia,  Desv.,  but  biserrate, 
it  very  closely  agrees  with  R.  amblyphylla  Rip.  The 
pubescent  peduncles  are  unusual — and  though  mentioned 
as  a  characteristic  in  one  or  two  species — is  not,  I  think, 
of  importance. — A.  H.  W.-D. 
