228 
The  leaflets  vary  much  in  shape  in  my  plant,  often  shewing 
greater  parallelism  of  the  sides  than  I  believe  to  be 
consistent  with  B.  mollis  Sm.  The  leaflets  are  not  quite 
glandless. — A.  Ley.  This  is  a  variation  of  B.  mollis  Sm. 
— W.B.  I  think  this  is  B.  Grenierii  Desegl.  rather 
than  typical  pomifera.  Its  foliage  seems  much  too  small 
for  the  latter.  It  is  very  difficult  to  name  roses  of  this 
group  except  from  a  considerable  series  of  specimens. — 
A.H.W.-D.  B.  mollis  Sm.,  forma. — H.  Dingier. 
B.  mollis  Sm.,  var.  ccerulea  Woods.  Near  Dron,  Mid 
Perth,  v.c.  88,  Aug.  27,  1909.  This  must,  I  think,  come 
under  var.  ccerulea  Woods.  The  leaves  are  more  or  less 
thickly  covered  with  very  small  glands,  scarcely  visible 
except  under  a  low  power  of  the  microscope.  The  fruits 
are  remarkably  unequal  in  size,  owing  probably  to  the 
fact  that  they  were  more  numerous  than  the  bush  could 
well  carry.  A  few  on  some  specimens  show  to  what  size 
they  would  have  attained  had  the  crop  been  smaller. — - 
W.  Barclay.  I  would  rather  put  this  to  the  glandular 
form  of  mollis  which  needs  a  name.  Subfoliar  glands, 
numerous  on  some  leaves,  nearly  absent  from  others. — 
A. L.  Correctly  named. — A.H.W.-D.  B.  mollis  Sm.,  forma, 
very  near  var.  ccerulea  Woods. — H.  Dingier. 
B.  suberecta  Ley.  (Ref.  Nos.  3355,  3358  to  3361,  3365). 
Common  about  Garve,  E.  Ross,  v.c.  106,  and  Kyle  of  Loch 
Alsh,  W.  Ross,  v.c.  105,  July,  1909.— E.  S.  Marshall  and 
W.  A.  Shoolbred.  All  these  gatherings  were  referred  to 
B.  suberecta  by  Rev.  A.  Ley  or  Major  Wolley-Dod,  or  both 
of  them.  They  vary  somewhat  in  the  amount  of  glands 
on  the  leaves,  and  in  the  colour  of  the  flowers  (deep  rose- 
pink  or  white,  or  white  tinged  or  tipped  with  pink). 
M.  Sudre  names  them  all  as  B.  pomifera  Herrm.,  var. 
vogesiaca  Rouy,  “  PI.  de  France,”  VI.  391.  This  appears, 
in  France,  to  be  confined  to  the  departments  of  Vosges 
and  Isere.  It  is  described  by  Rouy  as  having  ovoid- 
orbicular  or  spherical  fruits,  not — or  but  slightly — attenu¬ 
ated  at  the  base,  and  leaflets  distinctly  glandular  beneath. 
In  two  of  our  gatherings  the  leaflets  are  also  more  or  less 
glandular  on  the  upper  surface. — E.S.M.  Ref.  No.  3361. 
Yes:  under  suberecta  Ley:  not  extreme. — A.L.  Ref.  No. 
3358.  It  is  desirable  that  complete  specimens  showing 
flowers  and  ripe  fruit  should  be  supplied  by  Mr.  Ley  to 
