214 
but A. pratensis Schmidt may also occur.” He quotes “ Hill 
pastures above Cheddar Wood, C. E. Moss,” practically the same 
locality. — H.S.T. 
Rosa [ lutetiana Lev., var. andegavensis (Bast.)] [2348]. By the 
Avon, Ham Green, Pill, N. Somerset, v.c. 6, June 30 & Sept. 27, 
1922. The bush bore very poor fruit, a great contrast to other 
forms of R. canina in the same hedge. — Ida M. Roper. This is a 
hairy-leaved rose, and therefore cannot belong to the hdetiance. 
It is fairly typical R. stylosa, var. systyla Baker (R. systyla Bast.). 
— A.H.W.-D. This is not a form of R. lutetiana Lem. as the 
leaves are more or less hairy below, chiefly on the midrib. If a 
canina form it comes under R. dumetorum Thuilh, var. D6s6glisei 
Bor. Better specimens showing mature prickles, however, might 
show it to be a form R. stylosa Desv. of which it has the narrow 
bracts and glabrous staged styles. The same observation applies 
to the specimen from the same collector named R. lutetiana , var. 
andegavensis Bast., f. surcidosa Woods, which is very similar, but 
larger leaved. — W.B. (Later) This is systyla all right, but it 
must be quite different from the sheet I saw before, as it is not 
at all ‘fairly typical.’ The peduncles are much too short and 
mostly solitary, and the fruit and leaflets smaller than in type. — 
A.H.W.-D. 
R. [ lutetiana Lev., var. andegavensis (Bast.), f. surcidosa (Woods)]. 
Gang Wall, Yatton, N. Somerset, v.c. 6, Aug. 15, 1922. — Ida M. 
Roper. The same remarks apply as to the Pill specimen. This 
is also fairly typical systyla. — -A.H.W.-D. 
R. . Wood N.E. of Bignor Church, W. Sussex, v.c. 
13, July 13, 1922. — R. J. Burdon and J. E. Little. This is good 
R. stylosa , var. systyla Baker (R. systyla Bast.). — A.H.W.-D. This 
in my opinion is a large-leaved form of R. arvensis Huds. coming 
under var. major Coste. — W.B. I never saw such large dark 
green leaflets in any arvensis form. The hairs on the midribs in 
arvensis when present are usually longer and more scattered. 
The sepals won’t do, and the hispidity on the peduncles is that 
of systyla , not arvensis. An important point in favour of R. systyla 
is that its petals are + pink. I never saw R. arvensis with any 
but pure white petals, faintly cream in bud. — A.H.W.-D. 
Sorbus, or Pyrus 1 
A very difficult section : authors do not agree which generic 
term should be employed. Hedlund, in his account of the genus, 
differs from Lindberg, and British authors differ from both. The 
