141 
It  grows  on  a  gravelly  haugh  by  the  side  of  the  river  and 
there  are  plenty  of  R.  pimpinellifolia  and  R.  rubiqinosa 
growing  on  the  same  haugh.  The  fruits  soon  dry  up  and 
drop  off  so  that  I  have  never  seen  them  fully  grown 
Crepm,  in  a  note  on  this  rose,  says  that  it  differs  from 
H.  bitungensis,  Bor.  m  having  the  pedicels  and  receptacles 
hispid-glandular,  whilst  the  latter  has  them  smooth. _ 
W.  Barclay.  Clearly  right,  a  good  intermediate.— E.S.M 
Exactly  the  Boxley  Warren,  Kent,  plant  recorded  in  PI.  of 
Kent.  It  is  not  R.  biturigensis,  Bor.,  it  differs  in  several 
respects  besides  its  glandular  peduncles  and  calyx  tube 
The  only  other  form  of  the  hybrid  I  have  seen  described 
is  R  rubigmosa  x  pimpinellifolia  B.  Friesiana,  R.  Kell. 
(Ascherson  and  Graebner  Syn.  mitteleur.  FI  Bd  VT 
Abth.  1,  1902,  p.  348). — A.H.W.-D.  ’’ 
R.  involuta, Sm.  (==  R.  pimpinellifolia,  Linn,  x  tom-  -u 
bm.).  Near  Auchterarder  Railway  Station,  Mid, 
Perth,  v.c.  88,  Sept.  14,  1907.  For  Crepin’s  note  on  this^  , 
see  Annals  of  Scottish  Natural  History  for  Anril  ^ 
1896,  page  117.  The  flowers  are  of  a  somewhat  deepSed. 
ibis  plant  forms,  like  other  hybrids  of  pimpinellifolia^ 
rather  a  clump  than  a  bush,  extending  to  about  8  or  9  feet 
m  length  and  about  5  or  6  feet  high.  In  the  Herbarium 
ot  the  British  Museum  at  South  Kensington  I  saw  a 
specimen  labelled  “  R.  Doniana  horrida,  Horticultural 
Society  s  Garden,  1824— Sowerby’s  Herbarium,”  which  was 
quite  as  bristly  on  the  pedicels  and  receptacles  as  this 
Auchterarder  form.  Its  leaves,  however,  were  much  more 
thinly  covered  with  glands  on  the  under  surface.— W. 
Barclay.  A  most  beautiful  rose.  I  can  see  no  real 
evidence  of  R.  ruhiginosa,  though  the  acicles  and  glands 
on  the  stem  no  doubt  suggest  that  parentage.  The  leaflets 
are  more  or  less  cuneate- based,  densely  glandular  on  both 
sides.  1  should  judge  it  to  be  a  distinct  species,  unknown 
i°  2ler  '  j  ^  peculiar  plant.  The  densely  glandular 
Iw' Txanrd.  clustered  Sowers  are  against  R.  Doniana 
(Woods).  It  agrees  best  with  the  description  of  R.  involuta 
var.  Nicholsonn ,  Crepm,  or  it  may  be  R.  Sabini  (Woods)’ 
but  there  seem  to  be  almost  as  many  forms  of  these 
hybrids  as  there  are  bushes.  I  suppose  the  parentage  is 
R.  pimpinellifolia  x  tomentosa  but  the  leaflets  do  not 
— AWH  W11^161106  °f  pimPinellifolia  so  strongly  as  usual. 
Cv  .V- 
