93 
pedicels  on  my  sheet  have  only  one  gland  between  them, 
and  the  leaf-serration  is  almost  simple.  Scarcely  off 
type  canina  (lutetiana) . — E.S.M.  Though  my  specimen 
has  only  one  peduncle  out  of  four  very  slightly  glandular, 
I  think  this  is  more  probably  a  weakly  glandular  example 
of  the Hispidae  section  than  of  the  Lutetianae  or  Biserratae , 
in  which  any  glands  at  all  on  the  peduncles  are  exceedingly 
rare.  I  have,  however,  seen  them  in  R.  Malmundariensis, 
Lej.  and  Lejeune  admits  them  in  his  description,  but  its 
leaves  should  be  much  more  glandular  biserrate.  Perhaps 
weak  R.  verticillacantha  (Merat.)  is  the  best  suggestion  — 
A.  H.W.-D.  ss  • 
R.  canina,  L.,  group  dumetorum,  Thuill.  Lochearnhead, 
Mid.  Perth,  v.c.  88,  Aug.  25,  1898,  etc.  This  rose  I  sent 
to  Crepin  in  1897.  Like  myself,  he  did  not  know  what  to 
make  of  it— “the  styles  are  protruding  and  form  a  column 
exactly  as  in  the  R.  stylosa,  the  stigmas  staged  one  above 
the  other  and  forming  a  little  cone.”  “Sometimes,  in 
drying,  certain  varieties  of  R.  canina  may  simulate  a 
column,  but  in  that  case  the  stigmas  form  a  rounded  head.” 
The  note  is  too  long  to  quote  in  full  but  he  seemed  to 
think  it  might  be  a  hybrid,  of  which  R.  arvensis  would  be 
one  parent.  I  could  not  see  how  it  could  be  a  hybrid,  and 
certainly  R.  arvensis  could  not  be  one  parent,  as  there  is 
no  R.  arvensis  within  miles  of  it,  even  in  a  garden.  Next 
year,  on  getting  specimens  in  flower,  he  hit  upon  what  is 
undoubtedly  the  true  solution  of  the  difficulty.  I  translate 
his  note  in  full.  “This  form,  so  interesting  by  its  styles 
m  a  protruding  column  as  in  the  R .  stylosa,  Desv.,  is 
probably  in  reality  only  a  variety  of  R.  canina,  L.,  of  the 
group  R.  dumetorum,  Thuill.  If  this  is  so  it  must  be 
confessed  that  it  is  very  embarrassing  for  botanists  who 
do  not  know  well  the  R.  stylosa  and  who,  by  reason  of  its 
protruding  styles,  would  be  tempted  to  call  it  R.  stylosa. 
It  is  to  be  noticed  that  this  protruding  column  is  more  or 
less  pubescent,  whilst  in  the  R .  stylosa  it  is  always 
glabrous.”— W.  Barclay.  Not  dumetorum,  Thuill.  Sepals 
persistent ;  leaves  hairy  on  veins  beneath,  glabrous  above. 
?  implexa  (Gren.).— A.  Ley.  I  think  that  this  is  not  truly 
“  subcnstate,”  and  therefore  not  a  form  of  R.  coriifolia  Fr., 
to  which  implexa  belongs.  The  long  pedicels  and  narrow 
bracts  make  for  a  canina  variety.  I  believe  it  to  be  a 
northern  form  of  urhica,  which  Crepin  placed  in  the 
