REPORT FOR 1 894. 
447 
Scot. Nat. Hist.,’ 1895, p. 39 sqq., advises study of living plants of the 
varieties of R. involuta in their natural habitats, and of other roses 
growing near them, in order to discover, if possible, the parentage of 
the several involuta forms, and so attain in each case to a correct 
designation. The designation of the above, strictly speaking, no 
doubt given by Mr. Rogers, is R. involuta^ Sm., var. Robertsoni, Baker. 
— W. R. L. 
Rosa tomentosa, Sm., var. pseudo-mollis^ Baker fil. On Boar’s Hill, 
Berkshire, June, 1893. This is the rose which I pointed out to 
Mr. J. G. Baker as one which had been sent to the Botanical Record 
Club as R, mollis^ and commented upon by the Editor on p. 144 of 
the ‘Report’ for 1880. I have submitted specimens to M. Crepin, 
who says they are undoubtedly a form of R. tomentosa. — G. Claridge 
Druce. “ Rightly named, I should suppose, though it seems a case 
in which certainty is hardly possible without seeing more advanced 
specimens.”— W. M. Rogers. 
R. rulnginosa, L. ? var. Boxley Warren, E. Kent, 31st July, 1894. 
“ . . . une variation du R. rubiginosa, L.”j Prof. Crepin, in 
litt. — Edward S. Marshall. 
R. permixta, Desegl. Slopes over Hailing, W. Kent, 19th August, 
1894. Mr. Rogers thinks this probably correct. M. Crepin only 
says : ‘ W. micrantha., var.’” — A. H. Wolley Dod. 
R. micrantha, Sm. var., teste M. Crepin. Near Ivybridge, S. Devon, 
13th July, 1894. So different in appearance from the micrantha of 
Kent and Surrey that I was quite puzzled by it. Rev. W. Moyle 
Rogers writes : “ A frequent (perhaps the most frequent) S. Devon 
form of micrantha, most abundant on the wooded slopes in Teign 
Valley, its peculiarities due, I suppose, to the moist climate and 
intermittent sunshine.”— Edward S. Marshall. 
R. hystrix, Lem. Dartford Heath, W. Kent, 26th August, 1894. 
Mr. Rogers thinks this is probably correctly named, though he remarks 
the leaves are neither densely glandular beneath nor distinctly crenate 
based. M. Crepin did not go further than “W. micrantha, var.” — 
A. H. Wolley Dod. 
R. canhia, L., under var. aspernata (Desdglise). Dunsfold 
Common, Surrey, 13th Sept., 1894. R. canina, var. du groupe 
R. verticillacantha, Mer.” M. Crepin in litt. — E. S. Marshall. 
R. stylosa, Desv. var. systyla (Bast.) A state of poor sandy soil. 
Dunsfold Common, Surrey, 24th July, 1894. — E. S. Marshall. 
R. systyla. Bast. Ham Common, Surrey, 7th July, 1894. I have 
been unable to get a name for this rose. M. Crepin says it is a 
variety of R. systyla, Bast., interesting on account of its fruit becoming 
more or less rounded. Mr. Rogers also thought it an interesting 
form, but did not suggest a varietal name. — A. H. Wolley Dod. 
R. stylosa, Desv. var. leucochroa (Desv.) Bigbury, S. Devon, 7th 
July, 1894. An abundant rose in the district around Modbury and 
Kingsbridge ; certainly most distinct and constant in character, as a 
