(Feb 1920)  Page(s) 53, vol. 47.  
 
Rosa blanda Willmottiana Baker, according to the figure, has nothing to do with R. blanda, but belongs without doubt to R. virginiana.

(Feb 1920)  Page(s) 52-53, vol. 47.  
 
Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, 47:52-53 (1920) 
Per Axel Rydberg
ROSA VIRGINIANA Mill.
This has usually been regarded as a synonym of R. blanda.This may have been due partly to the fact that Miller described R. virginiana as unarmed, partly perhaps to the fact that at least one of the specimens on which R. blanda was originally based belonged to the species here treated. Another character assigned to R. virginiana by Miller, viz., "the shining leaves," does not very well apply to R. blanda as usually understood. The name R. virginiana Mill, was substituted for R. lucida Ehrh. in the New Gray's Manual by Robinson and Fernald. I therefore wrote to Professor Fernald, asking him kindly to let me know the reasons for the change made. In answer I received the following letter, which I take the liberty of publishing:

Rosa virginiana Miller, Gard. Dict. ed. 8, no. 10 (1769), is represented by a fine sheet in the herbarium of the British Museum, marked "Rosa virginiana Mill Dict. No. 10!" James Britten and J. G. Baker who called my attention to it say there is absolutely no question about its authentity. There are three fruiting branches and they are perfectly good R. lucida Ehrh. Crepin recognized it and has written on the sheet "R. lucida Ehrh. Cr." and J. G. Baker (Jour. Linn. Soc. XXXVII. 74) in his Revised Classification of Roses so treats it. I took a photograph—an excellent one nearly life-size—and it shows the characteristic broad-base and curved infra-stipular prickles at two points.

It is therefore plain that R. virginiana Mill, is the oldest name for the rose usually known as R. lucida Ehrh. To me it seems that R. carolinensis Marsh, applies better to this species than does either of the two species described by Linnaeus under the name of R. Carolina. R. rapa Bosc is apparently a double form of this species.

Mr. Best reduced this species to a variety of R. humilis. He had collected a great number of rose-specimens in New Jersey. Some of these were presented to Columbia University. These show many gradations between R. lucida Ehrh. and R. humilis Marsh, (i.e., the original R. Carolina L.), and also between these and another form, R. humilis villosa Best (R. Lyoni Pursh). Best concluded that all should be regarded as a single variable species. He has been followed by N. L. Britton and C. K. Schneider, the latter using the name R. virginiana lucida Best. I doubt if Best ever used said combination, at least in print. In my opinion several of Mr. Best's specimens are of hybrid origin, and this circumstance would give a satisfactory explanation for the intergradation, which is rarely met with elsewhere.

Rosa blanda Willmottiana Baker, according to the figure, has nothing to do with R. blanda, but belongs without doubt to R. virginiana.

(Feb 1923)  Page(s) 69-70, vol. 50.  
 
Notes on Rosaceae XIV
Per Axel Rydberg
22. Rosa Woodsii Lindl.
This was published in 1820 in Lindley's Monograph. Five years later Lindley published an illustration in the Botanical Register of what he supposed to be the same, but evidently he was mistaken. In the Botanical Register (pl. 976) Lindley gave the following remarks:

It was subsequently named and published by the writer of these remarks . . . but the specimens which were examined for the purpose, were so imperfect that, upon a comparison of the characters ascribed to the species with fresh specimens, they were ascertained to be materially erroneous; the stipulae, which were stated to possess the remarkable peculiarity of being convolute like those of R. carolina, proving to be, in fact, like those of R. lucida.

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 specimens in De Candolle's Herbarium. And yet our original error is still retained by Mr. 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 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.

These cutting remarks of Lindley's were wholly unwarranted, for Seringe did not assign any new characters that were not found in Lindley's original publication, and it was the latter himself that assigned new characters. Let us recite a few lines from Lindley's own description in his Monograph, page 22.

Leaves without pubescence; stipules very narrow and acute, convolute and fringed with glands . . .Leaflets 7-9, shaped like those of R. rubella, shining, flat, simple, acute, paler beneath . . . Fruit naked, ovate, with short, connivent, entire sepals which are free from glands as is the peduncle.

From this it is evident that Rosa Woodsii of the Botanical Register is not the same as the original one described in Lindley's Monograph. This carelessness on Lindley's part has caused a great deal of confusion, and it is hard to know what the original R. Woodsii was. Some have suggested R. humilis, but as the pedicels, hypanthium and sepals were without glands and the latter connivent, this suggestion is far from the truth. Others have suggested R. blanda Ait., but the true R. blanda is a boreal plant and not found on the Missouri, and the leaves are dull and pubescent beneath.

The R. Woodsii of the Botanical Register might sooner be a form of that species. The only species that agrees with the description of the original R. Woodsii is the one that Torrey called R. foliosa leicocarpa and in my flora of Colorado I called R. Macounii, the same as Greene has described as R. Sandbergii and Lunell as R. deserta. I also think R.  fimbriatula Greene belongs here. It is a shrub belonging to the Rocky Mountain region but extends eastward to the Missouri River. Watson referred it partly to R. Woodsii, partly to R. Fendleri. Watson assigned also new characters to R. Woodsii, viz. lobed sepals. Notice that Lindley originally described them as "entire." The lobing or not-lobing of the sepals is a character of no value in the Cinnamomea group. In other groups as for instance, the Carolina and Canina groups. it is a fairly reliable character. Rosa Maximiiliani Nees belongs to this species.

North Dakota: Pleasant Lake, Benson County, 1912, Lunell (R. deserta Lunell); Little Missouri River, Moyer 702.
South Dakota: Missouri River, north of White River, Hayden 254; White River, Stearns.
Nebraska: Cheyenne County, Rydberg 101.
Kansas: Rawlins County, Hitchcock 978a.