444 
A.H.W.-D.  This  does  not  belong  to  R.  Blondceana  Rip., 
which  has  peduncles  more  or  less  hispid-glandular.  It 
comes  under  var.  scabrata  Crep.,  or,  which  is  apparently 
a  variation  of  the  same  group,  var.  vinacta  Baker.  It  is 
nearer  in  the  shape  of  its  leaflets  to  Crepin’s  plant,  of 
which  I  have  an  author’s  specimen  from  Rochefort, 
gathered  in  1858.  It  differs,  however,  in  having  the 
styles  longer  and  quite  glabrous,  whereas  in  the  Belgian 
plant  they  are  moderately  hairy.  In  the  latter  also  the 
subfoliar  glands  are  larger  and  the  fruit  more  nearly 
globose.  Major  Wolley-Dod  in  “  List  of  Brit.  Roses 
says  that  “R.  scabrata  Crep.,  never  having  been  described, 
is  best  excluded.”  Whether  Crepin  ever  described  it  or 
not,  I  do  not  know,  and  in  his  later  years  he  certainly 
used  the  name  for  a  group,  as  indeed  he  did  with  nearly 
all  the  names  which  he  employed  latterly.  But  that  it 
was  originally  the  name  of  a  special  form  is  certain,  and 
it  was  this  form  which  was  described  by  Dr.  Christ  in 
“  Rosen  der  Schweiz./’  No  doubt  Dr.  Christ  considered 
it  as  a  variety  of  R.  tomentella  Lem.,  but  that  does  not 
affect  his  description,  which  was  founded  on  specimens 
received  from  Crepin.  Nor  does  it  affect  the  name  which 
he  employs,  R.  scabrata  Crep.  So  that  if  you  deny 
Crepin’s  right  to  the  name,  you  cannot  deny  that  of 
Dr.  Christ,  and  must  therefore  call  it  R.  scabrata  Crep.  in 
Christ  “  Rosen  der  Schweiz.”  I  think,  however,  that 
Crepin  defined  it  well  enough  as  a -group  name,  and 
therefore  I  should  label  Miss  Roper’s  plant  as  R.  canina  L. 
of  group  scabrata  Crep. — W.B. 
R.  canina  L.,  var.  [splicerica  (Gren.)] .  Combe  Glen, 
Westbury-on-Trym,  W.  Glos.,  v.c.  84,  June  27  and  Oct.  9, 
1913.  Flowers  almost  white.— Ida  M.  Roper.  This  is  one 
of  the  thinly  hairy  forms  of  the  group  R.  dumetorum 
Thuill.  It  is  closely  allied  to  R.  urbica  Lem.,  and  may  be 
put  under  that  name.— W.B.  Not  R.  sphcerica  Gren.,  as 
the  midribs  are  decidedly  hairy.  It  may  be  placed  to 
R.  semiglabra  Rip. — A.H.W.-D. 
R.  [glauca  Vill.] ,  (with  scattered  sub-foliar  glands, 
chiefly  on  the  veins).  By  Railway  Bridge  near  Abbotsford, 
Roxburghsh.,  v.c.  80,  July,  Sept,  and  Oct.,  1912.  Mr. 
Barclay  tells  me  that  this  group  of  glauca  forms  is  far 
from  common  in  Scotland. — I.  M.  Hayward.  Cannot  be 
