ROSA SPINOSISSIMA 
not only the widest distribution of any species of the genus, but it is the 
most northerly in its range, being the only Rose known to be spon- 
taneous in Iceland, where it was discovered by Sir W. J. Hooker. 
It extends from Iceland to Ireland, through northern and central 
Europe, and is sparingly found in Italy and Spain ; it reaches 
northern China and Japan, but does not touch the Himalaya. It has 
been known to botanists under different names for some four centuries, 
if not more, and has been distinguished in their writings. Thus 
C. Bauhin’s^ figures are perfectly manifest, and Lobel’s Duyn-Roosen^ 
and the Rosa ai^vina of Tabernaemontanus^ are unmistakable. Ray 
in his Uistoria P lantariim^ leaves no doubt as to the identitv of our 
Burnet Rose, nor does Dalechamp under his “ Rosa sylvestris pomi- 
fera.”^ Gerard in his Catalogue of 1596 calls it “ Rosa pomifera, the 
Pimpernel Rose.” Many other instances among the pre-Linnaean 
botanists could be cited, but those enumerated will suffice. 
It is well known that Linnaeus gave but scant attention to the genus 
Rosa, and thereby created great confusion both at the time and subse- 
quently. The name spinosissima was adopted b)^ him from Bauhin, 
and under this name he first described this Rose m his Species Plan- 
tarimi (1753), but he did not mention its peduncles till the publication of 
the Systenia Naiurae{i 759), wherein he credits it with hispid peduncles 
and introduces Rosa pimpinellifolia with those organs glabrous. In 
the Mantissa (1771) he publishes Rosa piinpinellifolia without descrip- 
tion, saying that Haller makes it the same as Rosa spinosissima, which 
he describes as having its peduncles sometimes smooth and sometimes 
hispid. This seems to have started a controversy which has lasted to 
the present day, in spite of the fact that there are two specimens in 
Linnaeus’ herbarium, both labelled Rosa pimpinellifolia, and both 
having smooth peduncles. Smith altered the name on one of these to 
Rosa spinosissima, possibly because Jaccjuin, who supplied the specimen 
and who had labelled \i Rosa anstriaca (which it certainly is not), added 
that it differed but slightly from Rosa spinosissima. The confusion 
this time does not appear to have been Linnaeus’, except that he 
united under one name a smooth and a hispid-peduncled plant which 
he had at first thought should be kept distinct. In the Amoenitates 
Linnaeus speaks of Rosa spinosissima as growing in Sweden ; but as 
the plant had not in his time been found there, it is probable that he 
is here confusing Rosa cinnamomea with Rosa spinosissima. The name 
spinosissima was adopted by Lindley, Woods, and Sir J. E. Smith ; 
the latter came to the conclusion that when Linnaeus added Rosa 
pimpinellifolia he had forgotten the plant to which he had previously 
‘ Phiax, p. 483 (1623). 
■ Kniydtboeck, pt. 2, p. 244 (1581). 
^ Kreuterbuch, pt. 2, p. 788 (1591). 
■* \'ol. ii. p. 41 (1650). 
‘ Ico 7 i. p. 1088 (1590). 
248 
