l8o THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES. 
Crepin’s note is answered.] Mr. Bailey would do well to gather this 
curious form in flower. It belongs to the group of which my R. 
pseiido-ciLspidata (cnfr. “ Primitise Monographic Rosarum,” p. 753) 
makes a part. The foregoing observations are written in case we 
really have to deal with a variety of R. tomentosa^ but does the plant 
actually belong to that species ? May it not rather be a form of R. 
coriifolia belonging to the group of R. cmerea^ Rap. (cnfr. 'Prim. Mon. 
Ros./ p. 719)? It is possible, and even quite probable. You sent 
me (No. 106) a rose from Railway Bank, Niddry, near Edinburgh, 29th 
July, 1881, which comes near Mr. Bailey’s. The forms of R. coriifolia 
with glandular leaves are rare, and not yet understood. Your No. 
106, and ]Mr. Bailey’s plant, if they do belong to R. cotiifolia^ constitute 
varieties new to the British Flora. You can, I think, put on the 
ticket ‘veris R. coriifolicB^ Fries., var. R. ci?ierece, Rap.’” “I 
revisited the locality on the 7th July, 1888, and found this rose fairly 
abundant, and constant. The flowers were just opening, and were of 
a full pink, rather lighter in shade than R. ionmitosa. The petals 
were somewhat unregular in shape, crumpled at the edge, and generally 
the notch was ill defined. The uncination exhibited considerable 
variation between plant and plant, and even on the same plant ; the 
lower parts of the flowering branches generally produced the caiiina 
type of hooked prickles, with the enlarged base j the prickles of the 
upper portions of the branches were far from uniform, some being 
straight, and occasionally projecting forward, while others were 
slightly curved, as in tomentosa^ and so on into a distinctly hooked 
form, both wdth and without a broadened base. There were about 
fifty low^ bushes scattered over a space of about two or three hundred 
yards of a marshy portion of the mountain side. I collected sufficient 
flowering specimens for the members, and have asked Mr. J. E. 
Griffith, wTo w^as good enough to accompany me to the station, to 
collect fruiting specimens, in the autumn, for the Club. I sent three 
selected specimens to Professor Crepin, wTo has been good enough 
to report upon them as follows : ‘ I have just returned from a journey 
in the Alps, and found your fine specimens of Rosa tomentosa^ Sm., 
var. uficinata, awaiting me. After having examined these wuth much 
attention, I am led to think that we have in them a form of R. 
tomentosa. As you very justly say, the form of the prickles varies 
much on the stems, where they are sometimes of typical form 
(slightly arcuate), and sometimes of a more or less uncinate form, 
recalling those of R. ca?iina. In the presence of this last fact — 
wTich is at least rare in R. tomeiitosa, we must seek with care for the 
practical characters wTich permit us to distinguish with certainty this 
aberrant form (var. uncmata) of Rosa tomentosa from certain 
glandular-leaved varieties of R. coriifolia. In the distribution which 
wflll be made of this variety U 7 icmata^ it would be well if each portion 
w^ere represented by two specimens : one wflth the caulinary prickles 
hooked, and the other wflth the caulinary prickles slightly arcuate. In 
the three specimens which you have sent me, the middle leaves of 
the flow^ering branchlets are pretty often 9-foliate, wTich is rare in R. 
tomeiitosal ” — Charles Bailey. 
