ROSA POLLINIANA 
many forms which have been distinguished by botanists and described 
under specific names. This spontaneous variation is not surprising 
when it is remembered that both Rosa gallica and Rosa arvensis are 
extremely variable plants. Many of these Roses are so beautiful and 
distinct in appearance that the natural desire would be to retain them 
as species. It would indeed be easy to increase their number almost 
indefinitely, but it is more practical to reduce than to augment, and 
botanists are now generally agreed to regard them as sub-varieties, or 
even in some cases to refer them back to their type, although neither 
of these courses would be regarded with favour by the authors of the 
specific names. I have seen these Roses in their natural habitat, and 
have cultivated them in my own gardens in England and in France, 
and after careful observation I have found that the characters upon 
which the species were established are far from constant. Even the 
specimens distributed by their authors do not agree with one another. 
The whole subject is fully discussed by Crepin in his observations upon 
Rosa gallica L. and its hybrids . 1 Deseglise was criticised for making 
his Rosa Polliniana too comprehensive, and it is more than probable 
that exception may be taken to my referring it here to Rosa incarnata 
Deseglise ( non Miller). This is the Rosa incarnata figured in the 
Botanical Magazine* and mistaken by Sir J. D. Hooker for Miller’s 
Rosa incarnata , which is the well-known Maiden’s Blush Rose. 
The drawing in this work was made from a plant collected by the 
Abbe Boullu at Charbonnieres (Rhone) and now growing in my 
garden at Tresserve. He describes it in Cariot’s Etudes des Fleurs 
as a small bush with slightly spreading branches, flowering in J une 
and July on the outskirts of woods at Limouset, Dardilly, and 
Charbonnieres. 
1 Bull. Soc. Bot.Belg. vol. xviii. p. 343 ( Primit . Motiogr. Ros. fasc. v. p. 589 [1880]) (1879). 
2 Vol. cxv. t. 7035 (1889). 
334 
