ROSA MOSCMATA, van ABYSSINICA Rduler 
1 2 
/\osa mosdiata, var. abyssinica : a typo recedit liabitu conipacto ; aculeis magis 
confertis ; foliolis parvis, rigidulis ; rhachi magis glandidosa ; Horibus paucioribus, 
minoribiis ; sepalis siniplicibus. 
/v. nwsc/iafa, var. abyssinica Rehdcr in Bailey, CycL dm. Hart. vol. iv. p. 1550 
(1902). 
R. abyssinica R. Brown in Salt, .Ibyss. App. p. Ixiv (1814). — Bindley, Ros. 
Monogr. p. 1 16, t. 13 (1820). — Seringe in De Candolle, Pnniy. vol. ii. p. 598 (1825). — 
A. Richard, A 7 . Abyss. mqX. i. p. 261 (1847). — Oliver,/^/. Trap. Afyic.vcA. ii. p. 381 
(1871). — Descglise in Bull. Soc. Bat. Bcig. vol. xv. p. 206 [Cat. Rais. Ros. p. 37 
[1877]) (1876). — Crepin in Bull. Soc. Bot. Bclg. vol. xviii. p. 29 [Pyiniif. Monogy. Ros. 
fasc. V. p. 537 [1880]) (1879). 
R. Schinipeyiana Hochstetter in F/oya, xxiv. Intell. 31 (1841). 
Stems not sarmentose ; pyickles small, slightly hooked, more crowded than in 
the type. Leaflets firmer in texture, oblong, acute, i-f in. long, scarcely at all hairy, 
but minutely aciculate on the midrib beneath ; petioles glandular and aciculate, not 
pubescent. Floweys few, in a corymb ; pedicels pubescent, not aciculate. Calyx- 
tnbe turbinate ; lobes ovate-acuminate, simple, in. long, pubescent on the back. 
This variety is allied to the Persian variety Christ. In 
its extreme form it has not much resemblance to Rosa nwscJiata Mill., 
but is really connected with it by forms found at lower altitudes and 
in less arid situations. It inhabits the mountains of Abyssinia at 
heights of from 6,000 to 7,000 feet above sea-level. It was formerly 
supposed to be exclusively African, but it was found at Yemen m 
Arabia in 1837 by Botta and by other botanists in various localities 
in Asia, though always in the same latitude as Abyssinia. It was 
originally found by Salt during his travels in Abyssinia in 1809-1 i, 
and was first recognized as a distinct species by Brown, who wrote a 
botanical appendix to Salt’s travels. 
Lindley’s description is very incomplete. Crepin attributed this 
to the dearth of specimens at his disposal when drawing up his 
description. Crejiln, on the contrary, had ample material on which 
to base his conclusions. Oliver gives a good and careful description ; 
he was inclined to think it might not be specifically distinct from some 
extra- African form. With Rosa sempervirens L. it has some superficial 
resemblance, but little in essential characters. 
41 
