lO THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES. 
Rubus dumetorum, var. triangularis^ A. Ley. Hedges, Upper Sapey, 
Herefordshire, i6th August 1901. For description of and remarks 
upon this variety, see ‘ Journ. Bot.,’ vol. xl. (1902), p. 69. I am only 
able to send a few sheets this year, and shall hope to send a further 
supply next season. — Augustin Ley. 
Rosa tomentosa, Sm., var. sylvestris (Lindl.). 'Fhornbury, Here- 
fordshire, 1 6th August 190T. I do not know whether this is rightly 
named ; but it bears numerous glands on the under surface of the 
leaf.- — Augustin Ley. “ I should say, R. tomentosa, .Sm., sj>. collect. 
The leaves seem to me not nearly green or bare enough for var. 
sylvestris.” — W. M. Rogers. 
R. to?nentosa x canina (agg.). Hedge, near Gallantry Bank, Cheshire, 
15th August 1901. This curious and interesting plant was not in 
good condition when I gathered it, having already lost many of its 
leaves ; but some of its flowers were still open or even in bud. The 
universally barren fruit on so large and well-grown a bush suggested 
hybridity, while its slender, straightish prickles (at least on most of the 
branches), very compound-serrate leaves, hairy on both sides, very 
pubescent and glandular peduncles, pointed to tomentosa as one parent. 
For the other I can only say canina (sp. agg.), all the characters by 
which the segregates can be determined being absorbed by the 
to?nentosa influence. Mr. Moyle Rogers, who has seen specimens, 
agrees as to the first parent, but suggests arvensis as the second, basing 
his suggestion, he tells me, on its long exserted style column, the lung 
pedicels, peculiar prickle=!, and leaves. Though I cannot confidently 
dissent from this, I can only say that the exsertion of the styles is less 
prominent than in several of my authenticated gatherings of R.tomcn- 
tella, R. dumalis, and other canina segregates, and is much less than 
I should have expected in a plant with arvensis parentage, especially 
in fruits so shrivelled ; whereas the above-mentioned difficulty in 
recognising leaf and prickle characters applies equally to arvensis as to 
cani?ia segregates. The habit of the bush was not in the least trailing 
nor suggestive of arvensis I hope to study the plant further, and to 
get better specimens next year. — A. H. Wolley-Dod. “T, too, fail to 
see any sign of arvensis here ; this would surely have been traceable 
in the two buds on my specimen. From the crowded, rather short 
leaflets, and the small globose fruit, I incline to believe it an offspring 
of tomentosa and either tomefitella or obtusifolia ; the former, fo'r 
choice.” — Ed. 
R. Crepiniajia., Desegl. Hedge, Chelsfield, West Kent, 14th 
September 1901. — J. Groves. “Specimens of this plant were originally 
so named by Deseglise. It grows in fair quantity, and always retains the 
distinctive character of the erect subpersistent sepals. Its occurrence is 
interesting, as the suberistate section of R. canina is found iirincipally 
in our northern and midland counties.” — H. and j. Groves. “This 
appeared to be identical with a rose pointed out to me at Grafflmm, 
Sussex, last summer by Mr. Rogers, who writes; ‘I agree with you. It 
