6o4 the botanical exchange club of the BRITISH ISLES. 
grown in a waste part of my garden, without any extra cultivation, for 
twenty-five years. — C. E. Palmer. 
Potentilla procumheus, Sibth. Llanyre, Radnorshire, July 1899. , 
New county record. — W. H. Painter. “ Right.” — E. F. Linton. 
Rosa pimpinellifolia x canina ; = R. hibernica, Sm., var. glabra, 
Baker. Hedges near Hoylake, Cheshire, 5th August 1899. I am 
not at all sure that I ought not to have labelled these R. pimpi- 
nellifolia xglaicca. In either case it is a good example of how a 
hybrid may exceed either or both of its parents in frequency. I saw 
only three or four plants of R. pimpinellifolia, Linn., and those not 
within a quarter of a mile of the hybrid, but I only searched a por- 
tion of the coast sandhills, where it probably grows. Canina forms 
were also few, and I saw no glauca or subcristata at all, though the 
latter is stated to be frequent in the district in the ‘ Flora of 
Cheshire.’ The hybrid is so abundant as to fill many of the hedges, 
and except one bush of R. Do?iiana, or possibly R. Robert soni, it 
belongs exclusively to the var. glabra. Its hybrid origin is already 
shewn by the universally abortive fruit. —A. H. Wolley-Dod. “ I 
quite agree in this naming. The tendency to reflexed sepals in some 
of the fruits points to R. ca 7 iina rather than R. glauca, as the 
second parent. The glabrous leaves, with here and there compound 
serrations, and a few glands on the petiole suggest R. dutnalis as the 
canina form.” — E. F. Linton. 
R. dumetorum, Thuill. Glebe hedges, Knighton, Radnor, 8th 
August 1899. M. Crepin writes of this: “I do not think that this 
form belongs to the coriifolia group, although its sepals are ascending. 
Its styles are not woolly as in R. coriifolia, and, besides, its general 
facies is not that of the latter. Perhaps one should see in this form a 
variety of R. canina of a group near R. diwieiorum, with teeth often a 
little glandular. R. implexa has the leaflets glabrous excepting the 
midrib.” I had suggested the alternative names, R. coriifolia, Fr., or 
R. unplexa, Gren., to M. Crepin, on account of the (usually) strongly- 
ascending sepals, but his comment on this character in many examples 
is often “sepales redresses accidentellement,” so it appears that that 
character is not to be relied on. — A. H. Wolley-Dod. 
R. stylosa, var. systyla (Bast.). Plentiful in a lane near Begbrooke, 
Oxfordshire, district 5 of my ‘Flora,’ August 1899. — G. Claridge 
Druce. “ Correct.” — E. F. Linton. 
Pyrus rotundifolia, Behst., variety. Woods near Symond’s Yat, 
West Gloucester, 13th June 1899. The type occurs also in the same 
woods. The variety now sent seems to depart from the type in the 
opposite direction from the variety decipiens, N. E. Brown. I have 
known the trees from which the present specimens are sent for many 
years, but never before succeeded in obtaining fructification. — A. Ley. 
“To our thinking this name is untenable, having already been used 
