494 
prickles  are  quite  straight.  But  for  the  hispid  styles  they 
might  be  put  under  var.  foetida  Bast.,  or,  if  you  make  it 
a  species,  R.  foetida  Bast.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  like  most 
specimens,  they  do  not  exactly  tally  with  the  description 
of  any  named  variety.  The  specimens  do  not  show  fruit 
at  the  right  time;  that  is,  when  one  can  judge  of  the 
position  and  duration  of  the  sepals.  It  is  therefore  with 
some  reserve  that  I  have  classed  them,  though  I  have 
little  doubt  as  to  what  I  have  said.  To  give  a  varietal 
name  in  any  sense  other  than  the  name  of  a  group  is  not 
possible,  at  least  for  me,  in  the  case  of  most  specimens 
not  only  of  the  Tomentosce  but  of  most  other  Rose 
species. — W.  Barclay  (in  lit.  28  Feb.,  1914).  I  should 
place  this  to  R.  scabriuscula  Sm.  R.  foetida  has  very 
decidedly  glandular  leaflets,  as  well  as  quite  glabrous 
styles.— A.H.W.-D. 
R.  Eglanteria  Huds.,  var.  comosa  (Rip.).  (No.  7). 
By  the  sea,  Mountstewart,  Co.  Down,  Sept.  3,  1914.- 
a  H.  Waddell.  Sepals  not  erect  enough  and  persistent 
enough  for  comosa  Rip.  It  belongs  to  group  Apricorum 
I  think  correct,  but  towards  R.  micrantha 
Sm.— A.H.W.-D. 
R.  Eglanteria  Huds.,  var.  apricorum  (Rip.).?  Embley 
Park,  Romsey,  S.  Hants.,  v.c.  11,  July  15,  1914.  R.  S. 
Standen.  Possibly  correct  but  the  material  is  not  good 
enough  to  decide. — W.B. 
R.  micrantha  Sm.  Bank  of  Avon  below  Bristol, 
W.  Glos.,  v.c.  84,  June  and  Sept.,  1906. — J.  W.  White. 
Correctly  named. — W.B. 
R.  canina  L.,  var.  lutetiana  (Leman)  ?  (No.  5). 
Wood  by  the  sea,  Mountstewart,  Co.  Down,  Sept.  3,  1914. 
—  C.  H.  Waddell.  Yes.  Being  a  glaucous  form  it  may 
be  called  var.  glaucescens  Desv. — W.B.  If  the  leaves 
were  glaucous  i  should  quite  agree  with  Mr.  Barclay, 
hut  they  do  not  appear  so  to  me  (by  artificial  light),  so 
I  should  leave  it  as  R.  lutetiana  Lem.— A.H.W.-D. 
R.  canina  L.,  var.  andegavensis  (Bast.).  Hedge  by 
the  Avon,  near  Pill,  N.  Somerset,  v.c.  6,  June  and  Oct., 
1911. — J.  W.  White.  Its  biserrate  leaflets  and  glandular 
pedicels  make  it  enter  into  the  group  Verticillacantha 
