338 
Haddingtonsh.,  v.c.  82,  Sept.  14,  1911.  This  rose,  the 
discovery  of  which  at  Port  Seton  was  noted  in  the 
“Journal  of  Botany,”  1910,  p.  332,  is  undoubtedly  a  form 
of  the  hibernica  group,  differing  from  all  others — at  least 
of  the  hairy  leaved  forms — -hitherto  recorded,  in  the 
composite  glandular  toothing  of  the  leaflets.  This  might 
arise  from  either  parent.  But  as  no  such  form  of  pim- 
pinellifolia  has  yet  been  found  in  Scotland  we  may 
conclude  that  the  origin  of  this  character  must  be  found 
in  the  second  parent.  This  might  be  (1)  a  form  of  R. 
tomentella  (Lem.),  (2)  of  R.  dumetorum  Thuill.,  or  (3)  of 
R.  coriifolia  Fr.  The  first  has  not  been  found  in  Scotland, 
and  may  be  dismissed.  Forms  of  R.  dumetorum  with 
composite  serration  are  so  rare — I  have  only  met  with 
one  plant  in  Scotland — that  it  is  hardly  possible  that  this 
can  be  the  second  parent.  On  the  other  hand  forms  of 
R.  coriifolia  Fr.  with  composite  glandular  serration,  of 
the  group  Watsoni  (Baker)  and  ccesia  (Sm.)  are  abundant 
all  over  the  country,  and  therefore  I  conclude  that  this 
rose  is  R.  pimpinelli folia  x  R.  coriifolia  Fr.,  of  the  group 
Watsoni  (Baker),  or  ccesia  Sm.,  the  latter  if  we  consider 
the  hispid  peduncles  as  owing  also  to  the  second  parent. 
This  is  highly  probable,  as  it  is  certain  that  the  form  with 
smooth  peduncles,  i.e.,  R.  pimpinelli  folia  L.  is  the  prevalent 
form  at  Port  Seton,  although  in  such  a  multitude  of 
bushes  as  exists  there  I  should  not  like  to  affirm  that 
R.  spinosissima  L .,  i.e.,  with  hispid  peduncles,  does  not 
occur  at  all.  I  may  say  that  the  sepals  become  erect  and 
persist  long,  though  they  are  not  fully  persistent,  which 
strengthens  the  opinion  that  the  second  parent  is  a  form 
of  R.  coriifolia  Fr. — W.  Barclay.  A  hybrid  with  some 
tomentosa  form  is  quite  a  possibility,  but  I  think  Mr. 
Barclay  has  diagnosed  his  plant  correctly,  especially  as 
he  has  had  the  advantage  of  seeing  the  growing  bushes, 
with  their  associates. — A.H.W.-D. 
R.  [ glauca  Yill.,  var.  ?] .  (No.  6).  In  hedge,  Saint- 
field,  County  Down,  Aug.  3,  1911. — C.  H.  Waddell.  Surely 
this  is  one  of  the  Villosae  ;  pedicels  and  base  of  fruit 
hispid,  and  leaves  very  hairy  beneath.— E.S.M.  Nothing 
to  do  with  R.  glauca ,  but,  in  my  opinion,  identical  with 
Mr.  Waddell’s  No.  8,  viz.,  R.  o?nissa,  var.  submollis  Ley. — 
A.H.W.-D.  This  also  is  R.  tomentosa  Sm.,  of  group 
omissa  Desegl. — W.B. 
