231 
var.  obovata  Baker.  It  is,  at  any  rate,  one  of  those  plants 
quite  in  the  doubtful  borderland  between  the  Coriifolice 
and  the  Tomentosce  groups.  The  leaflets  are  smaller  than 
in  Baker’s  specimen,  but  quite  as  hairy  above . ” 
M.  Sudre  remarked : — WR.  tomentosa  Sm.,  var.  tres 
curieuse,”  on  the  specimen  submitted  to  him  by  Major 
Wolley-Dod.  The  prickles  are,  I  think,  too  slender  and 
not  hooked  enough  for  the  Coriifolice. — E.  S.  Marshall. 
Better  and  more  advanced  specimens  are  needed  to  show 
what  this  really  is.  Prickles  on  young  shoots  should  not 
be  given,  but  full  grown  on  older  parts. — W.B. 
R.  canina  L.,  var.  rhyncliocarpa  Rip.  Mountain-side, 
Crickhowell,  Breconsh.,  v.c.  42,  Aug.  23,  1909.  I  found 
a  very  similar  plant  last  year  at  a  mountain  station  about 
8  miles  from  this  one ;  this  1908  plant  was  sent  both  to 
Sudre  and  Dingier,  and  they  did  not  think  it  exactly 
Ripart’s  rose. — A.  Ley.  Just  my  idea  of  R.  rhyncliocarpa 
Rip. — A.H.W.-D.  This  is  one  of  those  forms  which  in 
their  serration  stand  midway  between  lutetiana  and 
dumalis.  What  Ripart’s  species  is  I  do  not  know,  except 
from  Major  Wolley-Dod’s  paper  on  the  Eu-caninae ,  in 
which  it  is  said  to  be  distinguished  by  glabrous  styles  and 
beaked  fruit.  In  Mr.  Ley’s  plant  the  fruit  is  not  at  all 
well  developed,  and  although  in  this  stage  it  has  its  fruits, 
or  rather  some  of  them,  somewhat  beaked,  it  would  be 
well  to  see  fully  developed  mature  fruit.  Even  then  to 
conclude  from  description  alone,  without  seeing  the  type 
specimen,  that  this  is  Ripart’s  plant  would,  in  my  opinion, 
be  rather  rash.— W.B.  (See  also  Rept.  B.E.C.  1909,  p. 
458). 
R.  canina  L.,  var.  biserrata  (Merat).  (1)  Brampton 
Abbots,  Herefordsh.,  v.c.  36,  Aug.  13,  1909.  Maj.  Wolley- 
Dod  remarks  “  I  should  so  label  it.” — A.  Ley.  A  form  of 
R.  dumalis  Bechst.  with  globose  fruit  and  hispid  styles. 
What  R.  biserrata  Merat  really  is  seems  to  be  an 
unsettled  problem.  Merat  describes  his  plant  as  having 
petioles  glabrous,  little  or  not  prickly,  little  glandular. 
Sepals  almost  simple,  very  glandular.  Fruit  large.  Mr. 
Ley’s  plant  has  not  sepals  almost  simple,  nor  are  they 
glandular.  Ddseglise  describes  R.  biserrata  as  having 
petioles  pubescent,  glandular,  prickly.  Sepals  erect  on 
fruit,  but  not  persistent.  Styles  short,  very  hispid.  Mr. 
Ley’s  plant  certainly  has  not  the  sepals  erect  on  the  fruit. 
