143 
wide  of  the  mark.  Not  to  speak  of  the  serration,  which 
in  the  latter  is  more  or  less  composite  glandular,  the 
sepals  in  all  my  three  forms  are  not  persistent,  as 
Mr.  Ley  rather  rashly  concluded,  but  only  sub-persistent. 
The  great  bulk  of  them  fall  during  the  coloration  of  the 
fruit,  as  the  specimens  sent  will  show,  and  before  it  is 
fully  ripe.  In  R.  omissa  and  its  varieties  the  sepals  are 
not  truly  persistent,  but  they  do  not  disarticulate  till  the 
fruit  is  quite  ripe.  So  far  as  I  know  the  occurrence  in 
Britain  of  R.  omissa  or  any  of  its  varieties  has  not  yet 
been  satisfactorily  established.— W.  Barclay.  Though  my 
knowledge  of  this  group  is  superficial,  I  quite  agree  that 
this  cannot  be  R.  omissa ,  Desegl.  It  answers  better  to 
the  description  of  R.  dumosa  (Puget)  than  to  that  of 
R.  cinerascens ,  Dum.  Both  have  simply  serrate  leaflets, 
while  R.  dumosa  differs  in  its  more  ovoid  fruit  and  villous, 
not  merely  hispid,  style.  It  is  said  also  to  have  larger 
leaflets  and  more  prickly  petioles,  but  these  are  weak 
characters.  Both  have  slender  prickles  and  deciduous 
sepals  and  are  evidently  very  closely  allied. — A.H.W.-D. 
R.  rubiginosa ,  Linn.,  var.  - ~.  Flowers  white, 
tinged  with  pink  on  the  outer  surface  of  two  or  three 
petals.  Appearing  white  when  full  blown.  North  Bank 
of  Tay  below  Gaputh  Bridge,  E.  Perthsh.,  v.c.  89,  July 
23  and  Aug.  14,  1907.  “Cette  var.,  a  fleurs  blanches  ou 
blanchatres  et  a  folioles  abondamment  glanduleuses  au 
dessus,  est  a  ranger  dans  le  voisinage  des  var.  du  R. 
rubiginosa ,  Linn,  decrites  sous  les  noms  du  R.  Gremlii, 
Christ  et  R.  rubiginosa  Linn.,  var.  Moutinii,  Crep.” — Crepin 
in  litt.  I  have  seen  ordinary  R.  rubiginosa  with  leaflets 
more  or  less  glandular  above. — W.  Barclay.  I  can  say 
nothing  about  this,  except  that  it  agrees  better  with  the 
description  of  var.  Gremlii,  Christ,  than  with  that  of  var. 
Moutinii ,  Crep. — A.  H.  W.-D. 
R.  canina,  Linn.,  var.  vinacea,  Baker.  Between  Edge 
and  Tilston,  Cheshire,  v.c.  58,  Aug.  15,  1907.  Matches 
Mr.  Baker’s  type  specimen,  No.  28,  very  closely. — A.  H. 
Wolley-Dod.  A  very  acceptable  contribution. — F.H.D. 
R.  canina,  Linn.,  var.  urbica  (Leman).  Hedge-row, 
S.  Croxton,  Leics.,  v.c.  55,  Sept.  1907. — A.  R.  Horwood. 
The  only  thing  against  R.  urbica,  Lem.  is  the  thinly  hairy 
