22 2 THE BOTANICAL EXCHANGE CLUB OF THE BRITISH ISLES. 
A. Ley. Dr. F. A. Lees only named it as a variety, and M. Crepin 
was never quite satisfied as to the position of uncinata under tomen- 
tosa, Sm. See ‘Journ. Bot.,’ 1896, p. 267, but this is not Lees’ 
plant. — G. C. Druce. A low growing bush, with the leaves re- 
sembling y?. mollis, referred by Crdpin to his R. cuspidatoides.- — 
H. and J. Groves. 
R. glauca, Vill. Hedge between Staithes and Hinderwell, N.E. 
Yorks, Aug. 1894. — J. Groves. “Would apparently come under 
Watsoni of Baker’s arrangement.” — H. and J. Groves. “ A 
very interesting rose ; cannot be R. glauca on account of the doubly 
serrate leaves and glandular leafbacks ; one of the tomentosa section 
which I would suggest to be placed under R. uncinata, F. A. Lees, 
as f. glabrataP — A. Ley. Certainly not restricted R. glauca, Vill., 
but under R. coriifolia, Fr. agg. — G. C. Druce. 
Rosa foetida. Bast., Ref. No. 1447. Roadside, Conway Old 
Road, Penmaenmawr, Carnarvonshire, ist Aug. 1906. I do not 
name this with any confidence, but rely mainly on the glabrous or 
sub-glabrous styles, all other British varieties of the tomentosa group 
having them more or less hairy. — A. H. Wolley-Dod. “ I do not 
know R. foetida. Bast., but should imagine it to be a much more 
glandular form than the present. The glands on the under surface 
here are confined to the midrib or almost so, and the surface of 
the leaf is eglandular.” — A. Ley. “ I agree with Mr. Wolley-Dod 
that this must stand under the segregate foetida on account of the 
glabrous or sub-glabrous styles, though this var. is usually more 
glandular on the under surfaces of the leaflets, but Desdglise has 
named specimens quite as little glandular as the present ones.” — 
W. R. L. 
R. tomentosa, Sm. Thames Ditton, Surrey, nth Sept. 1875 
I, 1877. — H. Groves. “ R. omissa, Desegl., var. resinosoides, Crepin; 
sepals less truly persistent than is usual in this rose.” — A. Ley. 
This was referred by Deseglise to R. foetida. Bast., but Crepin did 
not consider the leaves sufficiently glandular beneath for that plant. 
— H. and J. Groves. 
R. ruhiginosa, L. Slope of Warton Crag towards the sea. 
West Lancs., 60. 9th Sep. 1906. “I think undoubtedly R. rubi- 
ginosa” — W. M. Rogers. It occurs on the scar limestone, a con- 
siderable distance from any house, and with only native plants near. 
But it may be only a denizen, and not truly native. It is new to 
West Lancs. — J. A. Wheldon. = R. Eglanteria, L. — G. C. Druce. 
Rosa rubigmosa, x Ref. No. 1329. Kidnal, Cheshire, 
30th July 1906. I am unable to name this Rose. I suggest 
hybridity with R. rubiginosa mainly on account of the presence of 
