originally given to the plant is altered and extended, but 
probably without any knowledge of the species, as the 
definition is still erroneous as regards the stipule, and as 
the other members of the definition may have been obtained 
from the description in the Rosarum Monographia. As 
usual, no information is given on the part of M. Trattinick, 
except such as is borrowed from Sprengel. In Sprengel’s 
Systema, the definition of that author in his Neue Ent- 
deckungen is retained. ; ' 
But in M. de Candolle’s Prodromus a new character is 
proposed for this plant. M. Seringe, by whom the article 
Rosa was prepared, had an opportunity of examining speci- 
mens in De Candolle’s Herbarium, of the authenticity of 
which there can be no question, as they had been commu- 
nicated by Mr. Lyell; that the specimens were also perfect 
will be doubted by no one who has had the advantage of 
knowing in how singularly beautiful a manner Mr. Lyell’s 
specimens are prepared. And yet our original error is 
still retained by M: Seringe, who has added to it more than 
one of his own. . He defines the leaflets to be shining, 
while in fact they are the reverse; the sepals to be 
naked, which are ‘covered with glands; and the lower pair 
of leaflets to be placed ‘at a distance from the others, and 
fringed with glands, a peculiarity which we believe does not 
exist. We hope that the figure and definition now given of 
this species will serve to prevent such errors as we have © 
pointed out from recurring. We take shame to ourselves 
that we should have been, in any degree, the cause of them. 
R. Woodsii is a dwarf bush, with upright dull red 
branches, and dull bluish-green leaves, which are unusually 
obtuse, and strongly veined. It is distinguished from most 
of the American roses of a similar habit by the early season 
in which it flowers; from R. /ava, (which continental 
writers call R. Lindleyi) by its compact upright mode of — 
growth, more numerous aculei, and short obtuse leaves. 
We cannot dismiss this subject without expressing our 
regret that the general brilliancy of M. de Candolle’s — 
- Prodromus should be tarnished by an. article so inaccurately 
compiled as the genus Rosa is, in the 2d volume of that 
work. Our limits prevent our entering upon the nature of 
these inaccuracies for the present; but we shall endeavour 
to find an early opportunity of indicating some of those 
which are of the most material importance. 
Our drawing was made in the Horticultural Society’s 
Garden. J. L. 
