70 
Rosa . Banks of the Tweed, near Galashiels, 
Selkirk, July 8, 1930. — R. J. Burdon. It is a pity that these 
are not better specimens. The scrappy ends of branches in 
flower are valueless. It appears to be a tomentosa hybrid, 
from its ill-formed fruit and marked heteracanthy below the 
inflorescence which does not show on all the small flowering 
branches. The other parent is not spinosissima, but is 
indeterminable from these specimens. It may be mollis, 
which would constitute a hybrid not known for certain from 
Britain. — A. H. Wolley-Dod. 
Rosa rubiginosa L. [var. echinocarpa Gren.]. Dunsfold 
Common, Surrey, Sept. 11, 1930. I do not know if Col. 
Wolley-Dod will pass these for the variety Most of the 
fruits are more or less echinate and the very globular fruits 
and small leaves are very different from the forms of apricorum 
I have seen and sent in last year. All from the same group 
of bushes.- — W. Biddiscombe. This is not var. echinocarpa, 
the leading features of which are mixed armature on the 
main stems, and long eglandular acicles all over the fruit. 
Nearly all these fruits are smooth or a little aciculate only at 
the very base. It is the form of var. typica which I used to 
segregate as var. apricorum (Rip.) but now combine with 
v. comosa into my var. typica.— A. H. Wolley-Dod. The 
roundish ovoid fruits have acicles, but no glandular setae. 
I find a few suprafoliar glands however, which are usually 
absent in British specimens. It seems to me to be passable 
for the variety. — J. Fraser. 
Rosa micrantha var. trichocarpa Rouy. Copse on White 
Down, Surrey, July 20, 1930.— W. Biddiscombe. I do not 
feel satisfied that this is var. trichocarpa. That should have 
broad very hispid fruit. These fruits are unusually narrow, 
and many are quite smooth, none very hispid. The acicles 
under the inflorescence are in its favour but should be more 
numerous, and may sometimes be seen in var. typica, which 
also sometimes has hispid fruit. I have seen forms of v. 
trichocarpa with fruit as narrow as these, but that defect is 
partly counterbalanced by their being very hispid. I should 
label these R. micrantha v. typica W-Dod, towards v. tricho- 
carpa Rouy. — A. H. Wolley-Dod. It comes very close to the 
variety at least. The glands on the flowering branches under 
the inflorescence are not very numerous, and there are no 
acicles there, though I think they are often absent by defect 
in Surrey specimens, I hope it may pass. — J. Fraser. 
