381 
leafleted varieties of R. dumetorum , best under var. Gabrielis R. 
Kell., though it is very unusual for that to have glabrous styles. 
The ovoid fruit takes it off var. calophylla Rouy. — A. H. 
Wolley-Dod. 
R. canina L., group Transitoriae. Field hedge, Almondsbury, 
W. Gloster, v.c. 34, June 25 and Sept. 13, 1926. — Ida M. Roper. 
I should have felt inclined to have referred this to the Dumales , 
under var. viridicata Rouy. It is just a little too biserrate for the 
Transitoriae, none of the leaflets being simply so. The fruit also 
is not of the correct shape for var insignis, the only variety of 
that group to which it could be referred. I do not regard var. 
viridicata as at all a satisfactory variety, but if this be not var. 
insignis that is the only alternative. — A. H. Wolley-Dod. 
R. dumetorum Thuill. var. semiglabra (Rip.)- Horsell Common, 
Surrey, Sept. 18, 1926. — W. Biddiscombe. The two last sheets 
in this cover, of which I have marked the labels with an ‘A,’ may 
probably be f. semiglabra, but with remarkably long peduncles. 
The rest have their leaflets much too hairy. All these are pubes- 
cent on the lateral nerves as well as on the midribs, and most of 
them on the whole lower surface. I should call them f. urbica, 
but the styles are very thinly hispid, a character by which I 
used to segregate R. trichoneura Rip., but which I now regard as 
synonymous. — .A, H. Wolley-Dod. 
R. dumetorum Thuill. var. incerta Desegl. Field, Ursleigh 
Hill, Pensford, N. Somerset, June 22 and Sept. 24, 1926. — Ida 
M. Roper. The filaments of the styles of most of the specimens 
are glabrous, and the others are all but so, though the stigmas 
are papillose, so I think they can all be labelled f. laevistyla 
W.-Docl. There is a good deal of variation in the shape of the 
fruit from globose to ovoid, and the styles are variously exserted. 
The peduncles also are often more hispid than is usual. The 
colour of the flowers is difficult to judge from a dried specimen, 
but some at least of the specimens appear to have them bright 
rose, so that they would not have been referred to R. leucochroa 
by our former rhodologists, as most of our f. laevistyla has been, 
but I do not regard colour as of primary importance in most 
varieties. — A. H. Wolley-Dod. 
R. micrantha Sm. var. microcarpa R. Kell. Lane near Albury 
Down, Surrey, Aug. 15, 1926. — W. Biddiscombe. I think not 
var. microcarpa. The fruit is narrowly ovoid-urceolate or ellip- 
soicl-urceolate, not pyriform, there are no acicles under the 
