Difficulty has not however deterred Mr. Lindley from ap- 
plying his talents and acquirements to a new illustration of 
the whole group in a Monograph from whence the above 
most valuable synonymy and ensuing account of the subject 
of this article have been borrowed, and which in the course 
of the current month will be ready for the public. 
The present species is distributed by that gentleman 
under three principal varieties, branching within themselves 
into numerous subordinate ones or subvarieties, the techni- 
cal discriminations of which may serve rather for the amuse- 
ment of the florist than the occupation of the botanist, and 
are only noticed when the subjects are to be reduced, by 
means of synonymy, to places from which they may have 
been erroneously removed, as the present seems to have been 
by the late venerable botanist of Schoenbrunn. Why this 
has been called “ Tuscany Rose” we are not told. 
«Since Rosa pumila of Jacquin is to be considered as the wild state of 
this species, it ought perhaps to have been placed first rather than as a 
variety. In that case, however, the well-known name of gallica must liave 
been given up for another, the knowledge of which scarcely extends beyond 
the country in which it grows wild. 
“ Switzerland and Austria produce it in the greatest abundance, but it has 
also been found in Asia by Bieberstein. ‘au informs us that in the vicinity 
of Wurzburgh it grows so copiously as to injure the corn exceedingly by its 
creeping roots, like Rusus cesius (the Dewberry). It is better known in 
our gardens by Donn’s name of olympica, while the name pumila is impro- 
perly applied to Rosa majalis. 
«The numerous double varieties known under the names of the Giant, 
Velvet, Bishop, &c. Roses are of the most exquisite beauty, and would be 
unrivalled in the vegetable world if accompanied by the fragrance which cha- 
racterizes less brilliant species. The most splendid of them all is the Tuscany 
Rose. 
“ The Rosa arvina of Krocker’s Flora Silesiaca differs, as Rau himself 
confesses, in little except haying a smooth tube to the calyx and naked 
leaves. , 
“ Rosa gallica has many points in common with Rosa centifolia (pro- 
vincialis of the authors subsequent to Linnwus). They may be distinguished 
in any state by the stiff upright flowerstalks, want of large prickles, rigid 
leaves and smaller petals with shorter sepals (calycine leaflets) of the for- 
mer; its mode of growth is more compact ‘and stature generally less. Its 
leaves are moreover never edged with glands, which those of centifolia al- 
ways are. 
_  Forskahl’s Rosa gallica, which he mentions as growing at Constanti- 
nople as high as the houses, and with double white flowers, cannot possibly 
‘be this. Could he mistake Rosa moschata for it? which is known to be cul- 
tivated there.” Lindley monogr. loc. cit. 
