n. hybrid ? Lyncomb Hill, Sandford, N. Somerset, 
e. 6, . 16. — Ida M. Roper. Bairenness is, of course, 
• reat sig.. ‘.y Aridity in this genus; still, apart from that, I 
see nothing out R. ccesius in this. — E.S.M. 
Potentilla \grandifl<yra L.]. A native of the Alps and Pyrenees 
Seedlings appeared in roc.ic garden, introduced with other rock 
plants, Grey Abbey, Co Down, 1916. — C. H. Waddell. Probably 
a* tall shade-grown form of P. aurea. — H.S.T “Drawn up in a 
damp, shady locality.” — C.H.W. in litl. I think this is probably 
P. intmnedia L. ; it is not quite P. aurea. Certainly somewhat 
like Ian specimens of P. chrysantha, but this group is difficult, 
even whi n the exact locality is known. — A.J.W. 
Rosa, dumetorum Thuill., var. urbica (Leman). Cadbury Hill, 
Yattyn, N. Somerset, v.c. 6, June 20 & Nov. 6, 1916. — Ida M. 
Roper. I think this is correctly named. — W.B. Too little hairy 
for typical R. urbica. I should label it R. trichonearo, Rip. — 
A.H.W.-D. 
R. stylosa Desv., var. Lane, Wrington Common, N. Somerset, 
v.c. 6, July 12 & Sept. 23, 1916. Flowers pale pink. — Ida M. 
Roper. Yes; this belongs to the gi'oup Systyla Bast. — W.B A 
form of R. systyla Bast , peculiar in its subglobose fruit and its 
much pinnate sepals. The former character would justify its 
being labelled var. lanceolata Lindl., but I only know that by its 
brief description. — A.H.W.-D. 
R. stylosa Desv., [var. virginea (Rip.)]. By stream, Keynsham, 
N. Somerset, v.c. 6, Sept. 2, 1916. — Ida M. Roper. A very 
peculiar rose, but not R. virginea , which is quite glabrous. 1 
think the shape and spacing of its leaflets, also the prickles, point 
to its being one of the stylosa and not a dumetorum form, but I 
cannot name it. In some respects it recalls var. evanula Christ, 
and for the present I can only place it somewhere near that 
variety and R. virginea Rip. Some of the leaflets on the flower- 
ing shoots are quite biserrate. — A.H.W.-D. If this is a stylosa 
form, it is not var. virginea Rip., as it is quite distinctly hairy on 
the mid-rib. I do nou, however, think it a stylos a form, taking 
its characters into account. It seems to me to be a variety of 
R. dumetorum Thuill., hairy only on the mid-rib, and with irregu- 
lar slightly compound serration, and glabrescent or thinly hairy 
styles. It might be put under R. hemitneha Rip., but at best is 
only a slight variation of R. dumetorum Thuill. of the Urbica 
group. — W.B. 
