(Nov 2015)  Page(s) 1621.  
 
....three samples of R. odorata (R. sect. Chinenses, sample no. 31–33) formed an inner clade with R. brunonii (sample no. 20), R. helenae (sample no. 21), and R. weisiensis (sample no. 27) of R. sect. Synstylae, is similar to two recent studies (Fougere-Danezan et al., 2015; Zhu et al., 2015).

(Nov 2015)  Page(s) 1621.  
 
R. chinensis var. mutabilis (sample no. 29) was first reported in our study, and it presented in the Synstylae-Chinenses clade with an unresolved position (Fig. 1), which may be due to its remarkable variation in the flower color during blooming (Table 1). Nevertheless, more comprehensive molecular studies are still needed to ascertain the position of this peculiar species.

(Nov 2015)  Page(s) 1623.  
 
R. x fortuniana, which is traditionally placed in the R. sect. Banksianae, formed a clade with R. laevigata with 100% posteriori probability and 100% bootstrap confidence in our plastid sequence analyses (Fig. 1). R. x fortuniana is thought to be a hybrid between a R. laevigata seed parent and a R. banksiae pollen parent, and its cpDNA matK sequence matches that of R. laevigata, not R. banksiae (Matsumoto et al., 2001). This matK sequence result is consistent with our molecular data.

(Nov 2015)  Page(s) 1621.  
 
....three samples of R. odorata (R. sect. Chinenses, sample no. 31–33) formed an inner clade with R. brunonii (sample no. 20), R. helenae (sample no. 21), and R. weisiensis (sample no. 27) of R. sect. Synstylae, is similar to two recent studies (Fougere-Danezan et al., 2015; Zhu et al., 2015).

(Nov 2015)  Page(s) 1621.  
 
....three samples of R. odorata (R. sect. Chinenses, sample no. 31–33) formed an inner clade with R. brunonii (sample no. 20), R. helenae (sample no. 21), and R. weisiensis (sample no. 27) of R. sect. Synstylae, is similar to two recent studies (Fougere-Danezan et al., 2015; Zhu et al., 2015).

(Nov 2015)  Page(s) 1611.  
 
....three samples of R. odorata (R. sect. Chinenses, sample no. 31–33) formed an inner clade with R. brunonii (sample no. 20), R. helenae (sample no. 21), and R. weisiensis (sample no. 27) of R. sect. Synstylae, is similar to two recent studies (Fougere-Danezan et al., 2015; Zhu et al., 2015).

[Table 1 shows a probability of 0.87  and a bootstrap value of 53 between Rosa weisiensis and Rosa x damascena]

(Nov 2015)  Page(s) 1623.  
 
Furthermore, the origin of R. x cooperii (sample no. 43) is still in dispute. R. x cooperii is thought to be a seedling of R. laevigata (Beales, 1985), or a natural hybrid between a seed parent, R. odorata var. gigantea, and a pollen parent, R. laevigata (Young and Schorr, 2007). However, on the basis of our cpDNA molecular data, it formed a clade with R. odorata var. gigantea (Synstylae-Chinenses clade), rather than being clustered with R. laevigata (Fig. 1). This result suggests that the seed parent of R. ·cooperii might not be R. laevigata considering the maternal inheritance of cpDNA in Rosa (Matsumoto et al., 1998). Meanwhile, since this species was also not clustered with R. odorata var. gigantea in the Synstylae-Chinenses clade, it could not be confirmed whether the seed parent of R. ·cooperii is R. odorata var. gigantea, but is possibly a parent from R. sects. Synstylae and Chinenses.

(Nov 2015)  Page(s) 1621-1622.  
 
Within the Synstylae-Chinenses clade, R. x damascena (sample no. 47) from R. sect. Gallicanae was merged with R. sects. Synstylae and Chinenses....R. x damascena is thought to be a hybrid with three parents of wild species, and R. moschata Herrm. of R. sect. Synstylae is considered the female parent (Iwata et al., 2000; Millan et al., 1996). This viewpoint is supported by Takeuchi et al. (2000) whose study showed that R. odorata var. gigantea, R. moschata, and R. x damascena were grouped into one clade apart from R. sect. Gallicanae.

[Table 1 shows a probability of 0.87  and a bootstrap value of 53 between Rosa weisiensis and Rosa x damascena]