91 
3  ~  ?  (flowers  pink).  By  brook,  Blaby,  Leics., 
v.c.  55  J  uly  5,  1906.— W.  A.  Vice.  R.  lutetiana,  f.—  A.  Ley. 
bough  there  is  a  strong  tendency  to  biserration  in  some 
ol  the  leaflets  I  am  unable  to  make  a  better  suggestion 
than  R.  lutetiana,  Lem.,  forma. — A.  H.  W.-D. 
R.  canina,  L.  var.  surculosa  (Woods),  (fide  J.  E. 
Bagnall).  South  Croxton,  Leics.,  v.c.  55,  Aug.  6,  1906 
New  record.  The  glabrous,  distinctly  shining  leaves  of 
this  variety,  together  with  their  unusually  orbicular  out¬ 
line  and  their  thin  texture,  give  this  plant  so  distinct  a 
character  of  its  own  as  to  render  it  a  well-marked  and 
good  variety,  differing  entirely  from  any  of  the  other 
British  canina  forms.— A.  R.  Horwood.  Under  lutetiana 
—not  surculosa,  which  has  robust,  many-flowered  clusters. 
—A.  Ley  Yes  [lutetiana]  .—E.S.M.  R.  canina,  L.,  of 
the  group  lutetiana,  Lem. — W.  Barclay.  This  is  certainly 
not  R.  surculosa  (Woods)  type,  which  has  large  clusters  of 
flowers,  nor  is  it— I  think— his  var.  (3,  which  has  fewer 
clusters.  Stalked  glands  on  the  peduncle  are  so  frequent 
m  Woods  species  that  Deseglise  places  it  in  his  section 
Hispidae.  The  hairs  on  the  petioles  and  other  characters 
point  towards  R.  fallens,  Desegl.,  a  common  species  on  the 
Continent,  and  doubtless  occurring  in  Britain,  but  the 
hooked  prickles  are  against  it.  The  next  best  suggestion 
is  H.  canina,  var.  nitens,  Desv,  but  that,  in  addition  to  its 
very  sliming  leaves,  should  have  them  more  elongated 
than  m  R  canina  type  (i.e.,  R.  lutetiana ,  Lem.),  whereas 
these  &re  decidedly  broader  than  is  usual  in  that  species.— 
A.  _td.  W .-13. 
R.  canina ,  L.,  var. 
_  9 
T  •  ,  '  —  >  ■  Battenberg  Avenue, 
Leicester,  v.c.  55,  Aug.  1906.-W.  Bell.  R.  canina,  L„  an 
in  ermediate  between  R.  lutetiana  and  dumalis,  nearer  the 
former. — E.F.L.  Under  lutetiana. — A.  Ley.  Yes  ;  R. 
canina,  L.,  type  ( lutetiana ). — E.S.M.  No  plant  with 
petioles  and  midribs  so  obviously  hairy  is  likely  to  belong 
to  the  section  Lutetianae  nor  Biserratae  (dumalis)  and  this 
certainly  is  not  segregate  R.  lutetiana,  Lem.  nor  R. 
dumalis,  Bechst.  It  belongs  to  the  section  Pubescentes 
a°d  a?rees  with  R-  semiglabra  (Rip.),  a  species 
which  differs  from  R.  urbica,  Lem.  mainly  in  being  hairy 
on  midrib  only.  Plants  from  Yorks,  and  Devon  have 
been  thus  named  by  Deseglise.— A.H.W.-D.  More  or  less 
