61 
R. (No. 3). Siliwen, Bangor, Carnarvonsh , v.c. 49, 
June 1917. — J. E. Griffith. The bulk of this gathering (including 
all the panicles) is R. pulcherrimus Neum. A number of stem- 
pieces, which either are, or probably are, something else, have 
been separated and put by themselves. But I could not certainly 
say that every stem-piece left with the panicles comes from the 
same bush, or belongs to E. pulcherrimus. — H.J.R. 
E. (No. 4). Brynmeirion, Bangor, Carnarvonsh., 
v.c. 49, July 1917. — J. E. Griffith. Poor material. I should 
think E. dumetorum Wh. & N., and not far from R. diversifolius 
Lindl., but I cannot be sure. — H.J.B. 
Rosa dumetorum Thuill., [var. platyphylla Rau.]. Mountstewart, 
Co. Down, v.c. 38, Aug. 17, 1914. (See Rept. 1915 — 16, p. 537). 
— C. H. Waddell. To what I said before regarding this plant I 
have only to add that Rau appears to have had in view one dis- 
tinguished by large broad leaflets and with ovoid fruit. In the 
present specimen the fruit is not ovoid, and the leaflets are not 
large and broad. — W.B. I cannot imagine that I ever said this 
was E. platyphylla Rau. The leaflets are nothing like large or 
broad enough, and I fear there must have been some mixture, or 
more probably that this specimen does not come from the same 
bush. It is either R. dumetorum Thuill. by its globose fruit, or 
better, E. semiglabra Rip., which is very near R. urbica L6m. — 
A.H.W-D. 
E. glauca Vill. (group fugax Gren.). Bank of River Almond, 
Micl-Perthsh., v.c. 88, Sept. 15, 1917. This variety of E. glauca , 
distinguished from the type chiefly by its composite glandular 
serration, its glandular petioles, peduncles and backs of sepals, 
belongs to the same group of variations as Grenier’s E. fugax , 
though it may not be identical with that particular form. It is 
not very common. — W. Barclay. Certainly R. fugax Gren. is 
the nearest name of any in our list. — A.H.W-D. 
R. stylosa Desv., var. Lyncomb Hill, Sandford, N. Somerset, 
v.c. 6, Aug 20, 1917. The leaves and stipules, as well as the 
styles, seem too hairy for var. systyla, which it resembles — Ida 
M. Roper. I cannot make anything of this except E. stylosa 
Desv., var. systyla Bast. — W.B. I see no hairs on the styles, and 
R. systyla, to which it belongs, often has leaflets more hairy. — 
A.H.W-D. 
R. [ cinnamomea L.]. Undercliff, Kingsdown, Kent, v.c. 16, 
June 28, 1915. Apparently indigenous. — H. E. Fox. This is 
