166 
J. R. Matthews. 
There remains the group R. tomentella Lem. of the sub¬ 
section Eu-caninse. This is a small group, but a somewhat difficult 
one to segregate. Typical examples, possessing sub-orbicular, 
pubescent leaflets, more or less glandular beneath, and hard late- 
ripening fruit with reflexed sepals, are fairly easily recognised, but 
“ some individuals,” to quote Wolley-Dod, “ are liable to be mistaken 
for members of Tomentosa. Its more glandular members also run 
near forms of Micrantha while those with eglandular leaflets are 
often very difficult to distinguish from the group Dumetorum.” The 
limits of the group are thus extremely ill-defined and it is not impro¬ 
bable that some of its members owe their indefiniteness to hybridisa¬ 
tion with forms belonging to other groups. We may, however, attempt 
an analysis on the basis of leaf-serration (Bb), glandular or 
eglandular leaflets (Gg) and hispid or smooth peduncles (Ss). The 
following eight possible combinations have therefore to be 
considered: —BGS, BGs, BgS, Bgs, bGS, bGs, bgS and bgs. The 
type of R. tomentella Lem. is a BGs form, the variety with hispid 
peduncles, BGS, being var. decipiens Dum. An eglandular variety, 
the combination Bgs, may be placed, according to Wolley-Dod, in 
R. cavionii D^s^gl. et Gill, although Deseglise himself regarded 
this as a dumetorum form. Of uniserrate forms, R. obtusifolia 
Desv. corresponds to the combination bGs, and the only other 
uniserrate member is R. canina var. concinna Bak. which closely 
resembles R. obtusifolia , but having hispid peduncles, it represents 
the combination bGS. Three of the eight combinations have not 
been named, BgS, bgS and bgs. If they did occur in nature they 
would be extremely difficult to distinguish from members of the 
group dumetorum since they are all eglandular forms. 
We now pass to the subsection Rubiginosae, the members of 
which can be distinguished from those of the Eu-caninae primarily 
by the abundance of subfoliar scented glands. The subsection 
includes three groups which may be named after the aggregate 
species Eglanteria L., micrantha Sm. and agrestis Savi. 
Comparatively small, more or less tufted plants, are charac¬ 
teristic of the group Eglanteria. The stems show small acicles 
mixed with the main prickles, which are hooked and curiously 
uncinate in shape, quite different from the type of prickle generally 
seen in Eucaninae forms. Whether this mixed armature is any 
indication of hybridity in the group as it certainly is in the case of 
R. involuta and R. hibernica, I am unable to say, but it is of 
considerable interest to note that Miss Cole found only 10% fertile 
