445 
this  species,  which  has  glabrous  leaves;  here  they  are 
hairy  on  both  sides,  and  glandular  beneath.— E.S  M 
Ihere  may  be  some  mixture  here.  My  specimen  is 
certainly  no  form  of  B.  glauca.  Its  leaflets  are  hairy  on 
both  surfaces,  as  well  as  glandular  on  the  back/and 
biserrate,  and  one  or  two  peduncles  are  slightly  glandular. 
It  is  a  member  of  the  coriifolia  group,  but  is  much  too 
young  to  say  whether  of  the  sub-group  Goriifolice  or  Sub- 
collimz,  so  I  fear  I  can  go  no  further.  — A. H.W.-D.  Miss 
Hayward  sent  me  on  two  previous  occasions  specimens 
of  a  rose  which  seemed  to  me  to  be  the  same  as  one  which 
urSeilut0,  repm  many.  years  ago  and  of  which  said 
In  this  form  the  petioles  are  somewhat  pubescent  all 
round,  but  they  become  glabrous  with  age.  The  midrib 
is  likewise  somewhat  pubescent,  but  that  also  becomes 
glabrous  with  age.  This  thin  pubescence  shows  the 
tendency  of  this  form  to  approach  B.  coriifolia .”  The 
present  specimens  are  not,  in  my  opinion,  from  the  same 
bush  as  the  former,  and  do  not  so  clearly  show  the 
tendency  to  become  glabrous,  and  specimens  gathered  at  a 
later  stage,  say  when  the  fruit  is  reddening,  would  be 
required  to  show  if  the  pubescence  does  indeed  wear  off. 
In  any  case  this  and  the  others  show  a  very  close  approach 
to  B.  coriifolia  Fr.,  of  groups  Bakeri  and  Lintoni.  Crepin 
gave  no  name  to  the  form  determined  by  him  and  I  have 
not  seen  anywhere  else  a  similar  form  described.— W.B. 
w  It  stylos“  Des^-’  var-  systyla  Bast.  Combe  Glen, 
Westbury-on-Trym,  W.  Glos.,  v.c.  34,  June  27,  and  Oct.  9, 
igy  s°b  ?A*5towSk"ia*  m-  Eo*“'- 
R.  arvensis  Huds.  Gattonside,  near  Melrose,  Box- 
burghsh  v.c.  80  Aug.  6,  1913.  This  rose  is  uncommon  in 
Selkirkshire  and  Roxburghshire  in  a  wild  state.— I.  M. 
Hayward.  Probably  correct ;  but  weak  and  poor.— E.S. M. 
Correct—  A.H.W.-D.  Correct.  This  rose  is  certainly  not 
native  m  Scotland  as  a  whole.  In  the  extreme  south 
it  may  be  so.— W.B. 
Bibes  rubrum  L.,  var.  petramm  (Sm.).  River  Bank, 
near  Forest  Row  Station,  E.  Sussex,  v.c.  14,  May  14,  1910. 
— R.  S.  Standen.  This  seems  nearest  to  var.  petrceum * 
but  does  not  quite  fit  Smith’s  description  ;  flowers  glabrous. 
