92 
hairy  on  midrib  and  veins  of  the  underside  of  leaflets,  so 
that  it  is  neither  lutetiana ,  nor  dumalis,  nor  an  inter¬ 
mediate.  Probably  belongs  to  group  dumetorum,  Thuill., 
but  bad  better  be  gathered  afresh  and  at  a  later  date  for 
certainty. — W.  Barclay. 
R.  canhia,  L.,  var.  dumalis ,  Bechst.  Regent  Road, 
Leicester,  v.c.  55,  July  1906.— Coll.  L.  M.  Bell.  The  petals 
were  nearly  crimson  and  the  bush  formed  a  striking  object 
when  in  full  bloom.  I  visited  the  station  late  in  August 
with  a  view  to  collecting  fruit ;  but,  alas !  the  hedge  had 
been  trimmed  and  not  a  single  fruit  was  obtainable. — W. 
Bell.  R.  canina,  L.  var.  dumalis ,  Bechst.  The  commonest 
rose  in  some  districts. — E.F.L.  Rosa  dumalis ,  var. 
rubescens  of  Ripart,  I  believe. — A.  Ley.  Good  dumalis. — 
E.S.M.  Yes ;  flowers  deeper  in  colour  than  usual. — W. 
Barclay.  Correctly  named.  The  leaves  are  too  small  for 
R.  rubescens,  Rip.,  and  it  differs  in  other  respects,  but  it 
may  be  bis  var.  erythrella,  which  differs  in  no  respect 
from  R.  dumalis,  Bechst.  except  in  its  bright  rose  flowers. 
—A.  H.  W.-D. 
R . - ?  (flowers  pink).  Blaby,  Leics.,  v.c.  55, 
July  7,  1906. — W.  A.  Vice.  Well  marked  dumalis. — A.  Ley. 
This  undoubtedly  belongs  to  the  section  Biserratae 
{dumalis),  but  I  should  hesitate  to  call  it  well  marked 
R.  dumalis,  Bechst.  Its  woolly  styles  place  it  at  least 
equally  near  R.  eriostyla  Rip.,  a  species  which  has  been 
found  in  Devonshire  and  Cheshire.  There  are  minor 
points  in  which  it  differs  from  both  species,  but  on  the 
whole  I  incline  to  R.  eriostyla  Rip. — A.  H.  W.-D. 
R. - ?  (flowers  pink).  Blaby,  Leics.,  v.c.  55, 
July  7  and  Oct.  1, 1906. — W.  A.  Vice.  R.  dumalis. — A.  Ley. 
If  this  has  not  been  cut  from  the  identical  bush  that  the 
last  came  from,  it  is  at  least  identical  in  characteristics 
and  I  should  label  both  R.  eriostyla  Rip.,  or  for  those  who 
object  to  “undesirable  aliens”  R.  dumalis,  Bechst.  var. — 
A.  H.  W.-D. 
R.  canina,  L.,  var.  - ?  Braunstone,  Leics., 
v.c.  55,  Sept.  15,  1906. — W.  Bell.  R.  canina,  L.  var. 
vertieillacantha  (Merat.),  very  weak  form. — E.F.L.  I 
agree  with  Mr.  Linton. — W.  Barclay.  Yes,  either  very 
weak  vertieillacantha  or  andegavensis. — A.  Ley.  The  two 
