370 
THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH IST-ES. 
montami, to which it is physiognomically allied. There is an older 
A. pubescens^ viz., ‘Lam. Illust.’ i. 347 (1791), which is not the plant of 
Bieberstein. The latter has the leaves both on the lower side and on the 
margin, when fully grown, permanently clothed with a dense overlay of 
silky soft hairs. The flower stalks, also, and the outer side of the calyx 
lips, which are glabrous in A. vulgaris^ are densely covered with grey 
hairs. I have seen no British specimen, as yet, of Willdenow’s 
plant. — G. C. L)ruce. 
Rosa tomeritosa^ Sm. var. pseudo-jnollis, E. Baker. Boar’s Hill, 
Berks, August, 1892. — G. C. Druce. “See ‘ Journ Bot.’, November, 
1892, p. 341. My specimens gathered in September when I pointed 
out the rose to Mr. J. G. Baker in 13erks [not Oxon, as stated in 
‘Journ Bot.’] have been sent to M. Crepin, but I defer giving his 
opinion until I have supplied him with material gathered earlier in 
the season. It is the plant recorded as R. mollis in the ‘ Report of 
Bot. Rec. Club,’ 1880, p. 144, but which Dr. F. A. Lees said ‘has the 
prickles on the fruit-bearing branch (that alone sent), to my eyes, 
suspiciously stout and curved, but in other respects it seems typical.’ 
Smith is usually considered to be the author of R. tomentosa cf. ‘ FI. 
Brit.’ vol. ii, 539 (1800). Mr. Baker writes R. tomentosa, Woods. To my 
eyes this plant is a link between R. mollis and R. subglobosa, Sm.” — 
G. C. Druce. 
R. canina, L., var. Giggleswick, N. Yorks., 7th August, 1892. 
Near subcristata, Bak. ? but does not exactly agree with Scarbro’ 
specimens I have so named by Mr. Baker. — J. A. Wheldon. “ An 
intermediate form between R. glauca and R. subcristataP — W. Moyle 
Rogers. “ Not in a good state for determination, but I think it is 
var. subcristata, Baker.” — Arth. Bennett. “ Si je vois bien, c’est une 
varie'te du R. glauca, Vilk, a dents composees et qui fait partie du 
groupeque M. Baker a designe sous le nom de subcristataR — F. Crepin. 
R. canina, L. var. Heanton Punchardon, N. Devon, July, 
1892 — W. H. Painter. Fruit, Sep. 21, 1892. Coll. W. P. Hiern. 
“ This is a well marked rose. Other bushes besides this one from 
which these specimens were cut were seen in the district, but their 
leaves were not so pointed. I think it is near collina, Jacq., possibly 
it may be Kosinciana, Besser.” — W. H. Painter. “ R. canina, L. var. 
frondosaP — J. G. Baker. “Is R. systyla. Bast., a form with less 
prominent disc and less glandular pedicels than usual.”— W. Moyle 
Rogers. “ C’est une variete du R. stylosa, Desv., a feuilles presque 
glabres se rapprochant aussi du groupe de variations a feuilles 
glabres, qui comprend les R. rusticana, Deseg., et R. IcEvestyla, Rip. 
Dans ces echantillons, les styles ne sont pas restes unis pour former 
line colonne stylaire, mais se sont separes et pourraient ainsi tromper 
le botaniste qui ne connait pas bien le Ak stylosaP — F. Crepin. 
Pyrus tormhialis, Ehrh. Wychwood Forest, Oxon, June, 1884, 
near the var. perincisa, Borbas et Per. ‘ Oest. Bot. Frilsuhr,’ 1889, p. 
223. — G. C. Druce. 
F. Aria, Sm. Nightingale Valley, Clifton, Somerset, 15th June, 
1892. This must, I suppose, be referred to type P. Aria, Sm., of 
which it seems to be a variety with leaf lobes deeper than usual. — 
