REPORT FOR 1910. 
559 
of the Tomentosa group. I think this belongs to the Sherardi 
rather than to the Tomentosa group. — A. H. Wolley-Dod. 
. Mardale, Westmoreland, July ist (fruit Sept.), 1910. 
— Augustin Ley. The smooth peduncles and calyx tubes suggest 
R. farbiosa^'&Qz\i%\..^ but my specimen is only in bud, which renders 
the determination of its group difficult. When fruit is gathered 
separately, some should be put on each sheet. — A. H. Wolley- 
Dod. My specimens are rather poor. — W. Barclay. 
Rosa . Cowleigh Park, Malvern, Herefordshire, August 
23, 1910. “i?. scabriuscula, Sm. : ” Major Wolley-Dod. — Augustin 
Ley. 1 should' have thought this a form of R. suberecta, Ley, 
though the sepals are more reflexed than usual. The species seems 
to me to be more at home in the Tomentosa than in the Sherardi 
group. — A. H. Wolley-Dod. R. tomentosa, Sm., var. scabrtuscula, 
(Sm.), or near it. W. Barclay. 
R. . [ref. No. i]. Bellair Hill, Carnlough, Co. Antrim, 
August 9th, 1910. — C. H. Waddell. A member of the Sherardi 
group, which I cannot name. It looks most like R. suberecta, 
Ley, but is not that species. The next nearest is R. tomentosa, 
var. Woodsiana, Groves, but the leaflets are broader and much less 
narrowed below than in that variety; those of the barren shoots 
also are very much too densely pubescent, so much so indeed 
that they might have come from a different bush. The leaflets, 
as well as the prickles of barren shoots, are often misleading. — 
A. H. Wolley-Dod. This surely falls under R. omissa, Dese'g., 
but does not fit any of our described varieties. — A. Ley. Probably 
belongs to the omissa section of R. tomentosa, Sm. The fruit here 
on August 9 is not any better, hardly so well developed, as that 
of Mr. Ley’s 584 R. suberecta. Ley, var. on July 6. — W. Barclay. 
Rosa pseudomollis, Ley. Reeve’s Hill, Herefordshire, August 
29, 1910. Major Wolley-Dod agrees.— Augustin Ley. 
R. {Andrzeiovii, Ddsegl.) pseudomollis. Ley. Reeve’s Hill, 
Hereford, August 29, 1910.— Augustin Ley. This may be R. 
tomentosa, var. pseudomollis, E. G. Baker, but that variety should 
be distinguished from R. omissa, var. submollis. Ley, by more de- 
cidedly falcate prickles and subfoliar glands, so that this example 
is nearer var. submollis. These two varieties, and one or two other 
members of the Sherardi group, seem too near one another for 
satisfactory distinction. I do not think that the name R. An- 
drzeiovii, Desegl, should be kept up. It certainly does not repre- 
sent Stevens’ species, and I do not think it is synonymous with 
var. pseudomollis. It has, however, been so misapplied that it is 
