229 
give  a  correct  idea  of  what  suberecta  is. — W.B.  Ref.  No. 
3360.  Yes,  well  marked. — A.H.W.-D.  R.  tomentosa  Sm., 
var.,  typical  suberect  a  Ley,  after  my  knowledge  of  these 
forms,  whicn  are  very  interesting.—  H.  Dingier. 
R.  suberecta  Ley,  var.  glabrata  Ley.  (Ref.  Nos.  3366, 
3367).  Leaves  glabrous,  glandular  beneath;  flowers  white. 
Near  Kyle  of  Loch  Alsh,  W.  Ross,  v.c.  105,  July  21,  1909. 
These  are  confirmed  by  Rev.  A.  Ley,  who  remarks  that 
No.  3366  is  a  form  with  few  glands  beneath.  Strorne 
Ferry,  where  it  was  first  found  in  Britain  by  Messrs. 
Linton  (and  issued  by  them  as  R.  mollis ,  var.  glabrata ), 
is  not  far  off.  M.  Sudre  names  them  R.  Jundzilli  Bess., 
var.  trachyphylla  (Rau).  According  to  Rouy  (FI.  de 
France ,  YI.  345),  this  occurs  in  the  French  Departments 
of  Vosges,  Lorraine,  and  Alsace;  the  geographical  distri¬ 
bution  of  R.  Jundzilli  is  from  France  eastwards,  so  that 
its  occurrence  in  Scotland  seems  prima  facie  improbable. 
— E.  S.  Marshall.  No.  3366.  This  no  doubt  belongs  to 
the  glabrous  group  of  R.  tomentosa  Sm.,  erroneously 
determined  by  Scheutz  as  R.  mollis  Sm.,  var.  glabrata  Fr. 
If  I  mistake  not  the  original  specimens  sent  to  Scheutz 
had  white  flowers..— W.B.  No.  3367.  Correct.— A.H.W.-D. 
R.  tomentosa  Sm.,  var.  A  form  which  is  very  near  to 
suberecta  Ley,  but  there  are  differences ;  colour  of  flowers, 
much  fewer  glands,  and  glabrous.  I  have  never  seen  it. — 
H.  Dingier. 
R.  omissa  Desegl.,  var.  submollis  (Ley).  Marshbrook, 
Salop,  v.c.  40,  July  9,  1909.  The  prickles  in  this  rose,  as 
in  other  members  of  the  Omissce,  seem  to  vary  much  in 
curvature.  In  the  present  plant  they  are  nearer  to  sub¬ 
mollis  in  form  than  to  pseudo -mollis. — A.  Ley.  So  far  as 
the  specimens  show,  the  difference  between  this  and  the 
following  is,  to  say  the  least,  not  very  striking.  This  is 
by  no  means  “  mollis  like.” — W.B.  This  may  be  var. 
submollis  Ley,  but  it  makes  a  considerable  approach  to 
the  group  of  R.  tomentosa  in  its  very  flexuose  stem,  very 
acuminate  leaflets,  longish  peduncles,  and  hispid  not 
villous  styles. — A.H.W.-D.  R.  tomentosa  Sm.  forma, 
inclining  a  little  to  the  omissa  group.  Keller  attributes 
a  very  similar  form  from  our  sea-coast  to  omissa  (after 
W.  O.  Focke!).  I  think  it  nearer  tomentosa. — H.  Dingier. 
