102 
R. dumetorum Thuill., var. semiglabra (Rip.). Lane, Nailsea 
Common, N. Somerset, v.c. 6, June 14 and Sept. 24, 1919. — 
Ida M. Roper. This also is nearest to R. trichoneura Rip. — 
A.H.W.-D. This differs from var. urbica in its hairy styles, 
leaflets rather more rounded at the base, and with hairs only on 
midrib. It may be called var. semiglabra Rip., if that is worth 
separating from var. urbica Lem. — W.B. 
R. [dumetorum Thuill., var. Dtseglisei (Bor.)] (1) Castle wood, 
Banwell, N. Somerset, v.c. 6, June 6 and Sept. 18, 1918. — Ida M. 
Roper. I doubt that this is var. D6sdglisei , but the specimen is 
insufficient to name with any certainty. — W.B. This is, I think, 
the same as the Charfield plant, i.e. var. Briggsii but with 
glandular peduncles, but some of the leaflets are smaller. — 
A.H.W.-D. ( 2 ) Filton Meads, near Bristol, W. Glos., v.c. 34, 
June 25 and Sept. 25, 1919. — Ida M. Roper. Under R. incerta 
Desegl., from its subglabrous leaflets. — A.H.W.-D. Although the 
specimens sent cannot be found much fault with, they leave me 
very doubtful if this is realty a form of var. Deseglisei Bor. I am 
rather inclined to think it a form of R. stylosa Desv., but I cannot 
decide without seeing further specimens. — W.B. 
R. glauca Vill., of group Oenensis R. Keller. Ditch near top of 
Buckie Braes, Mid-Perth., v.c. 88, Sept. 16, 1919. In 1908 
I sent to the Club (No. 15) specimens of a rose which I called 
R. coriifolia Fr., of group Bakeri Deseg. This passed the Club 
unchallenged, but subsequently Lt.-Col. Wolley-Dod, in “ A list of 
British Roses,” wrote as follows : “One of these, No. 15, which I 
passed in Wats. E. C. Rept., 1908 — 9, has glabrous leaflets, and 
therefore is a glauca and not a coriifolia form ( See under venosa, 
p. 29). This caused me to re-examine the bush, and I found, to 
my surprise, that it consisted of two forms growing together, 
very similar but differing chiefly as to the clothing of the leaflets. 
One form undoubtedly belonged to group Bakeri , the other was 
what I now send. It will be seen that the leaflets in many cases 
are not quite glabrous but have a few scattered hairs, and these 
are denser at the top of the petiole. In some cases the leaflets 
are quite glabrous, and I agree that this rose is better put under 
R. glauca than R. coriifolia , although it shows how artificial is the 
distinction between the two groups. But the hispid peduncles 
and subfoliar glands quite prevent it from being put under venosa 
Swartz, as is done in the Colonel’s list, and I am willing to 
adopt ‘ Oenensis R. Keller’ as being a suitable name for the group 
to which my rose belongs, because I do not know any which has 
a prior claim, though there may be such. I suppose that when the 
