REPORT FOR 1 908. 
373 
type.” This plant is clearly different from the ordinary R. fcetida 
of Bast. ; and M. Sudre’s remarks upon it will be read with interest. 
— A. Ley. Under R. fcetida, Bast., with slightly hispid styles. 
I believe M. Sudre named this R. iomentosa, var. Arrondiana, 
Rouy., which differs from R. fatida chiefly in its narrower more 
hairy leaflets. Mr. Ley’s name cannot stand. Bastard described 
R. fxtida as a species, and it is a mucli older name than ctispida- 
toides, Crop.— A. H. W.-D. 
Rosa carionii, Desegl. and Gill. Gallonty Bank, Cheshire, 
27th July 1908, teste Mons. Sudre and Dr. Dingler. This 
species is likened by its authors to an eglandular tomentella (Leman). 
This has not a very close resemblance to that species, and like most 
of the specimens in Deseglise’s herbarium the leaflets are not quite 
eglandular beneath. — A. H. AVolley-Dod. This cannot be R. 
Carionii^ Deseg. and Gill., which, as the Collector states, is given by 
Deseglise as a form of R. tovientella, Lem., with the leaves eglan- 
dular below. This has on many of the leaves quite as many sub- 
foliar glands as the type of Leman, from which indeed it cannot be 
properly separated. — W. Barclay. 
R. canina, L., var. dumalis (Bechst.). Cerrig Raffes, Brecon, 
12th July 1908. M. Sudre simply notes it “i?. dianalis (Bechst.).” 
Major AVolley-Dod writes : “ It may be R. insignis, Deseg. ; but 
the styles are those of the glauca group.” — A. Ley. This falls into 
the d'umalis sub-group ; but is far removed from that segregate. 
Specimens sent direct to me by Mr. Ley, from this bush, were 
named var. recog7iiia, Rouy, by M. Sudre, of which I have not seen 
authentic specimens. Dr. Dingier thought it nearer fraxinoides^ 
H. Braun (also unknown to me), but with some doubt, adding that 
its sub-erect sepals, which are not apparent on my specimen, showed 
some affinity with R. Reutei'i^ var sub-canhia, Chr. — A. H. W.-D. 
One of the numerous forms of R. diannlis, Bechst. — W. Barclay. 
Crepin told me that R. sarme)itacea,\Nood?, = R. du?)ialts,'^ec\\?,X.., 
and Woods’ name has priority, being published in 1817. — G. C. 
Druce. 
R. oanma, L., var. dumalis (Bechst.), form imbelliflora, Rip. 
Linton, Herefordshire, June and Nov. 1908. M. Sudre has sug- 
gested the name, which is also borne out by Major Wolley-Dod’s 
remark on the plant. — A. Ley. One of the numerous forms of 
R. dumalis, Bechst. According to Keller the form rubellijlora, Rip., 
should have its st} le dicht behaart, which is not the case with the 
specimen. — AV. Barclay. Ripart described rubellijlora as a species. 
— G. C. Druce. 
R. canina, L., var. liispidula, Rip. Glewstone, Herefordshire, 
9th Aug. 1908. The name is due to M. Sudre. Major AVolley- 
