REPORT FOR 1 89 1 . 
335 
August, 1891. The Rev. W. M. Rogers says of this: — “I do not 
remember to have seen anything quite like your rose ; but I expect 
that Baker would accept it as an extreme example of Smith’s 
subglobosa .” — W. H. Purchas. 
Rosa rubiginosa , L., variety (?) Over Wood, near Linton, Cambridge- 
shire, 15th September, 1891. Rev. W. M. Rogers is of opinion that 
this is more probably to be assigned to a form of R. micrantlia , Sm., 
with an extraordinary development of aciculi and prickles. — 
Augustin Ley. 
R. verticillacantha, Merat, var. ? Littlehope, Herefordshire, 
19th August, 1891. This, though agreeing in technical characters 
with R. verticillacantha , possesses remarkably small round fruit, 
with the calyx-tube equally aciculate throughout, as in R. aspernata , 
Deseg. — Augustin Ley. 
The other specimens of Rosa are passed without comment by 
Mr. Baker. 
Pyrus scandica, Syme. ? Cefn Fedn Cliffs, Denbigh, 7th July, 
1891. The above station is a range of limestone cliffs, running 
northwards for about four miles from Llangollen, Denbigh. On 
these two distinct forms of Pyrus grow, in addition to P. Aucuparia , 
Gaert. One of these is clearly A*. Ana , var. rupicola , Syme ; the other 
is the plant I now send. I ventured to name this one P. scandica , 
Syme, hoping that it would prove identical with the P. scandica from 
Castle Dinas Bran, mentioned by Dr. Boswell, ‘Eng. Bot.,’ Ed. iii. , 
vol. 3, p. 246. On looking at the specimens of the Dinas Bran 
plant, however, in the Boswell herbarium, I saw that my own is totally 
different ; nor was I able to find anything exactly similar to it in the 
extensive collection of Pyrus- forms preserved there. The two forms 
on the Cefn Fedn cliffs seemed nearly equally abundant ; and I failed 
to see anything which could be called intermediate between them. 
Unfortunately, there was no fructification visible this year. — Augustin 
Ley. Doubtless Mr. Ley’s specimens when growing showed greater 
differences from the plant named rupicola , by Dr. Boswell, than they 
do when dried. It differs from the specimens named rupicola, by 
Dr. Boswell, in the broader leaves, and the more uneven and acuter 
dentition of the leaf-margins, in this approaching closely the descrip- 
tion given by Dr. Boswell (‘ Ex. Club Rep.,’ 1874-75) of the Sorbus 
meridionalis , Guss. Mr. Ley’s specimens cannot be named scandica, 
Syme ; they are nearer latifolia , Syme, especially to the Minehead 
plant gathered by Miss Gifford, to the young leaves of which those 
of Mr. Ley’s specimens closely approximate, yet the mature leaves 
cannot be held the same. According to Mr. Archer Briggs, the fruit 
of P. latipolia , Syme, is well distinguished from P. eu-Aria, Syme, 
but Mr. Ley found no fruits. Whether the fruit of P. rupicola, Syme, 
accords with P. eu-Aria or P. latifolia seems not to be known, as Dr. 
Boswell mentions he has seen no mature fruit. A specimen of 
rupicola from Rev. E. F. Linton has nearly ripe fruit, but they are 
nearly all punctured by some insect, which I often find in P. eu-Aria, 
and which at times doubtless alters the form of the fruit. On the 
