69 
R. Keller proposed to call var. incerta f. subhispida, but did 
not publish the name. Those with decided biserration run 
near R. Burnati Chr., but I have included that in v. incerta. 
The leaflets are sometimes almost glabrous, making the 
specimen near R. canina v. andegavensis, but I have no 
doubt all came from the same bush, which was not a well- 
marked one. — A. H. Wolley-Dod. Petioles and midrib only 
pubescent. Styles woolly. I would call it R. dumelorum var. 
semiglabra (Rip.). — J. Fraser. 
Rosa glauca Vill. var. subcristata R. Kell. Dunsfold Common, 
Surrey, Sept. 11, 1930. As far as we could see there was only 
the one bush on the Common, probably bird sown, as it is 
not a southern Rosa. It could not have been introduced 
artificially. — W. Biddiscombe. Yes, but not under that 
nomenclature. R. Keller never used the name subcristata, 
which I now replace by the older one of complicata Gren., 
reduced to a variety of glauca by H. Braun. It is a very rare 
variety in the south, being only known from one other Surrey 
station and from Dorset and North Somerset. The specimens 
have been gathered rather late for a variety which always 
matures early . — A. H. Wolley-Dod. 
Rosa tomentella Lem. var. Borrerix. Chiddingfold, Surrey, 
Sept. 21, 1930. Specimens of this Rose were submitted to 
Col. Wolley-Dod by my friend Mr. Bishop and named as 
above. There was a quantity of sterile fruit on the bush, 
which is supposed to be a sign of hybridity. The glandular 
peduncles led me at first to think it was decipiens but the 
leaves are much too large I believe for that. At the same time 
I should say the prickles on the petioles should be stronger. 
We found a similar Rose last year at Burningfold, with an 
equal number of barren fruit but much smaller leaves.— W. 
Biddiscombe. I would label this R. obtusifolia Desv. var. 
decipiens Keller and Gams., because only the midrib and 
secondary nerves are hairy, and the latter eglandular. With- 
out prejudice as to the specific name which has onty recentty 
been referred back to the original R. obtusifolia as the type 
of the group. — J. Fraser. I told Mr. Biddiscombe that this 
was probably a hybrid of var. Borreri. It is mainly that 
variety, but its ill-formed fruit makes me suspect hybridity. 
I now place it under R. obtusifolia, which replaces R. tomen- 
tella as the type of the species — A. H. Wolley-Dod, 
