(1898)  
 
New Garden Plants of the Year 1897:
Rosa heterophylla [ed. note: modern nomenclature would be Rosa 'Heterophylla'] (J.H.F. 1897, 777, f. 13)...A garden hybrid, between R. rugosa and R. lutea. (M. Cochet-Cochet, France)

(1917)  Page(s) 65.  
 
Paeonia obovata. (Gardeners Chronicle 1915, lvii, 290, f. 94.) Ranunculaceae. Herbaceous. Plant reaching a height of about 2 ft., with foliage characteristic of the genus, and white flowers 4-5 in. across. A re-introduction. Manchria and China.

(1906)  Page(s) 74.  
 
Pæonia lutea superba. (G. C. 1905, xxxvii.) Ranunculaceae. G. A variety with larger flowers than the type. (V. Lemoine et fils, Nancy.)

(1902)  Page(s) 98.  
 
Rosa aschersoniana (Gfl. 1902, 561, t.1504, f.1.) . Rosaceæ. H. A garden hybrid between R. blanda and R. indica. (Zabel, Gotha).

(1896)  Page(s) 16.  
 
Rosa centifolia paestumense, Sprenger. (B. T. O. 1895, 165.) Rosaceæ. A variety with double...

(1917)  Page(s) 68.  
 
Rosa cerasocarpa. See R. gentiliana.

(1918)  Page(s) 155.  
 
This brings us to Rosa rubiginosa cretica, Red., which is held to include R. cretica, Tourn.- a view also taken by Thory (Prodr. Monogr. Ros. p. 110) and Trattinnick (Ros. Monogr. ii. p. 83) - but Redouté's figure is very different from that of Sibthorp, having far larger , simply serrate leaflets, and flowers of quite double the size, while the spines are reduced to a single stipulary pair, Tratennick (Ros. Monogr. ii. p. 83) mentions a R. cretica, Vest., as differing from Tournefort’s plant, and this is described by Sternberg (Flora, ix. i. pp. 74, 76) as R. resinosa. For this R. resinosa, Reichenbach suggests (FI. Germ. Excurs . p- 616) the hybrid origin , "R. rubiginosa-villosa", but Crépin make no mention of such a cross. R. Keller (Ascherson & Grabn. Syn. Mittel.-Europ. FI. vi. p. 67) makes of R. resinosa, Sternberg a variety of R. pomifera, Herrm.., while at the same time (p. 106) citing R. rubiginosa var. cretica Red., as synonymous with R. glutinosa, Sibth. & Sm. The R. cretica, Wallr. Ros. p. 144, is a complete mixture, including the forms already mentioned and several others, so that it throws no additional light on the question.
Lastly, we have Cupani's figure, which is in the Linnean Society's copy of the Panphyton, though absent from the one at the Natural History Museum. There is a corresponding specimen at the Linnean Herbarium, the one alluded to by Lindley in his phrase "(v. v. sp. herb. Smith).’’ It is inscribed ‘‘ Rosa pumila alpina Pimpinellae exacte folis (sic) sparsis spinis incurvis aquate purpae, Cupani, Pan. Sci. t. 61.” There is also a ticket: ‘‘ Rosa cretica montana fol. subrotundis glutinosis et villosis. Corolla rosea frutex humilis. Inst. Cor. 43." The reference is to Tournefort’s Corollarium, and Dr. B. Daydon Jackson informs us that the ticket is in the handwriting of Pietro Arduino (1728-1805), who sent many plants of Italian and garden origin to Linnaeus. It is a fruiting specimen and agrees in every respect with R. sicula, Tratt., Ros. ii. p. 68, as was suspected from the locality. R. Heckeliana Tratt., also occurs in Sicily, but is markedly different in its softly villous leaflets and petioles.

[see Rosa glutinosa Sibth. & Sm. for full article]

(12 Oct 1916)  Page(s) 188-189.  
 
881. Rosa (Cinnamomeae) elegantula, Rolfe; affinis R. sertatae, Rolfe, ramis juvenilibus copiose et graciliter aciculatis et floribus duplo minoribus facile distinguenda.
 
Frutex ramosus, mediocris; ramuli subglabri, saepissime copiose aculeati, rarius subinermes. Folia conferta, 5-8 cm. longa, 7-9-foliolata; rhachis sparse glandulosa et aculeolata; foliola subsessilia, elliptica vel ovato-elliptica, obtusa, acute et simpliciter dentata, rarius subduplicato-serrata, utrinque glauca, 1-2 cm. longa; stipulae adnatae, anguste oblongae, obtusae tel subobtusae, minutissime ciliato-glandulosae, 5-6 mm. longae. Flores speciosi, saturate rosei, 2.5-3 cm. diametro, in ramulorum brevium apicibus solitarii vel pauci; pedunculi 2 cm. longl laeves. Receptaculum  anguste ovoideo-oblongum, laeve, 5-6 mm. longum. Calycis lobi ovato-lanceolati, caudato-acuminati, interdum subfoliacei, puberuli, minutissime ciliolati, rarissime glandulosi, ciciter 1 cm. longi, patentes. Petala late obcordata. Filamenta glabra, 2-3 mm. longa, antheris aureis. Styli villosi, in columnam 2 mm. longam cohaerentes.

CHINA: Wilson 1165, 1280 (ex hort. Veitch).

A very pretty little rose, readily distinguished from R. sertata, Rolf (Bot. Mag. t. 8473) by its copiously aciculate branches and by the much smaller flowers with vary deep carmine-rose petals. The plants were grown from seeds collected by Mr. E. H. Wilson for Messrs. James Veitch & Sons, with whom it flowered in June, 1908, and subsequently at Kew.
 

(1898)  Page(s) 138.  
 
Rosa gigantea- A flowering specimen of this species has been received at Kew from T. H.Hansbury, Esq., La Mortola, Ventimiglia, Italy, with the following information under date of April 26.-On Sunday I saw Rosa gigantea in full bloom on the façade of the Chateau Eleonore at Cannes, the residence of Lord Brougham and Vaux. The plant is growing in a box measuring perhaps 2½ft. x 1ft. x 1ft., and I should say that this box must be entirely full of the roots of the plant. The colour of the buds reminded me of those of the rose, Wm. Allen Richardson, but under the strong sun it opens very quickly and looks almost white before the petals fall.
R. gigantea was discovered in Burma, on the Shan hills plateau, at 4000 to 5,000 feet by Sir Henry Collett, K.C.B., and also in Manipur, at an altitude of 6,000 feet by Dr. Watt.
At firs there seemed hopes that this fine climber would succeed on walls, etc., in sheltered places in Britain,but although several plant at Kew and elsewhere withstood - with comparatively little protection- the severe winter of 1890-1, that of 1892-3 killed all of them outright. At Kew it grows vigorously under glass, but, as far, has not flowered.

(1918)  Page(s) 153-156.  
 
XII.—ROSA GLUTINOSA.
R. A. Rolfe.
For some time it has been suspected that the Rose long cultivated and recently figured as Rosa glutinosa (Willmott, Rosa, p. 467, tab.) does not agree with the original R. glutinosa. Sibth. & Sm., at all events as figured by the authors, and a comparison of materials, with the aid of a specimen from the Sibthorpian Herbarium at Oxford, kindly lent by Prof. S. H. Vines, reveals an amount of confusion that it seems desirable to clear up as far as possible.
Rosa glutinosa, Sibth. & Sm., was originally described in 1806 (Sibth. & Sm. FI. Graec. Prodr. i, p. 348), and based on “R. cretica montana foliis subrotundis glutinosis et villosis, Tourn. Cor. 43," the habitat being given as "In Cretae montibus Sphacioticis.” A figure is also cited, which was subsequently also published in Sibth. & Sm. Fl. Graec. t. 482. In this later work we find the additional references, ‘‘ Lindl. Ros. 95," and "R. pumila alpina, pimpinellae exacte foliis sparsis, spinis incurvis, aquate purpurea, Cupan. Panphyt. ed. 1, v. i. t. 61. Turning to Lindley,  we find the farther synonym "R. rubiginosa cretica, Redout. Ros. i. 93, 125, t. 50,” with the localities, Hab. in Parnasso, Sibthorp; Siciliae montibus (Cupani); Cretae, Tournefort (v. s. sp. herb. Smith & Banks.)" There is also the note, "For the synonym of Cupani I trust to Sir James Smith. No copy of the Panphyton containing t. 61 has fallen in my way ...It appears from Redoute's figure, which is less happy than usual, to be cultivated in France; our own gardens it has not yet reached." Comparison of the figures and the specimens shows a considerable amount confusion, and the references cited include more than a single species.
R. glutinosa was thus based upon — from two different sources, first on the the "Rosa cretica montana" of Tournefort, to which the locality cited presumably belongs, and second on Sibthorp's figure and the specimen from which it was drawn, which we believe to be different. In any case, it includes more than one species, and as Sibthorp's materials are not in doubt we will consider them first. Redoute’s and Cupani’s specimens are not concerned in the original publication.
There is an original sheet of Rosa glutinosa preserved in Sibthorp’s Herbarium at Oxford, named, but unlocalised, except that the sheet is placed in a folded cover of blue paper on which is written "Mt. Olympus." Mr. Druce, however, tells me that no reliance can be placed on this circumstance, as the cover is of a later date. This sheet contains three branches, which have been named by Crepin as follows; "a, R. glutinosa, Sibth. & Sm.; b, R. glutinosa var. lasioclada, Christ.; c, R. glutinosa var. lasioclada, Christ?" The word "lasioclada" is evidently a slip for leioclada, Christ. in Boiss. Fl. Orient. Suppl. p. 222, which is localised as from the mountains of Greece. This variety leioclada is a form without glandular aciculi on the branchlets, and is actually the form described by Sibthorp. The absence of aciculi is probably due to its representing a mature state, for other specimens of R. glutinosa show the same condition, and the specimen marked ‘‘a’’ only differs in having traces of these aciculi. In the younger specimens there is generally a copious development of the glandular aciculi on the branchlets.
There is also a sheet from Sibthorp in the Natural History Museum, South Kensington. It is labelled as follows: “R. glutinosa, F. Graec., J. L.; aff. villosa, n. 8. Rosa parnassi, Sibth.” To this Crépin has added: ‘‘ Veros. R. Heckeliana,
Tratt., Crép.”” “J. L.’’ represents Lindley, whilst the specific name, R. parnassi, Sibth., though not originally published, was afterwards recorded by Crépin (Bull. Soc. Bot. Belg. xviii. p. 395.) It indicates the locality where the plant was collected as Mt. Parnassus, Greece, where Heldreich subsequently obtained it. Borbas has since referred R. parnassi doubtfully to his R. Heckeliana var. semihaplodonta (Prim. Mon. Ros. Hung. p. 499), and in any case it is a form of R. Heckeliana. 
We now come to Tournefort’s original Cretan plant, which remains uncertain, for the description is inadequate and no specimen is known. Tournefort’s specimens are at Paris, and have formed the subject of a paper by Sieber (Isis, 1853, pp. 453-462), but no Rose is mentioned. Raulin (Descr. Crète, Bot. p. 448) enumerates only three Roses as natives of Crete, R. sempervirens, R. canina var. atrovirens, and R. glutinosa. Under the latter he includes Redoute's synonym above mentioned. R. resinosa, Stern. Spach. Phan. ii. p. 24, which was based on Redoute’s figure, and R. rubiginosa var. sphaerocarpa, Desv. in Journ. de Bot. ii. (1813), p. 118, a Rose from the French Alps. Raulin gives the locality as "Montagnes de Sphakia (Tourn., Sibth., Sieb.)," but this does not carry the question any further except as to Sieber's materials, of which a specimen is preserved at Kew. It is a fruiting specimen, quite distinct from that figured by Sibthorp, and from its softly villous leaflets and petioles is apparently a luxuriant form of R. Heckeliana, Tratt., with rather large leaflets, and an ellipsoid, very glandular fruit {in fully mature condition). The only other Cretan materials at Kew are in flower , and are typical R. Heckeliana, collected by Dr. A. Baldacci, in 1893, at Hagia-Pneuma, one of the summits of the Asprovuna Mountains, south of Khania, a locality some distance to the north-west of Sphakia, whence Sieber's specimen was obtained, and Tournefort's specimen also my well have been R. Heckeliana. At all events we find no evidence that the form figured by Sibthorp occurs in Crete.
This brings us to Rosa rubiginosa cretica, Red., which is held to include R. cretica, Tourn.- a view also taken by Thory (Prodr. Monogr. Ros. p. 110) and Trattinnick (Ros. Monogr. ii. p. 83) - but Redouté's figure is very different from that of Sibthorp, having far larger , simply serrate leaflets, and flowers of quite double the size, while the spines are reduced to a single stipulary pair, Tratennick (Ros. Monogr. ii. p. 83) mentions a R. cretica, Vest., as differing from Tournefort’s plant, and this is described by Sternberg (Flora, ix. i. pp. 74, 76) as R. resinosa. For this R. resinosa, Reichenbach suggests (FI. Germ. Excurs . p- 616) the hybrid origin , "R. rubiginosa-villosa", but Crépin make no mention of such a cross. R. Keller (Ascherson & Grabn. Syn. Mittel.-Europ. FI. vi. p. 67) makes of R. resinosa, Sternberg a variety of R. pomifera, Herrm.., while at the same time (p. 106) citing R. rubiginosa var. cretica Red., as synonymous with R. glutinosa, Sibth. & Sm. The R. cretica, Wallr. Ros. p. 144, is a complete mixture, including the forms already mentioned and several others, so that it throws no additional light on the question.
Lastly, we have Cupani's figure, which is in the Linnean Society's copy of the Panphyton, though absent from the one at the Natural History Museum. There is a corresponding specimen at the Linnean Herbarium, the one alluded to by Lindley in his phrase "(v. v. sp. herb. Smith).’’ It is inscribed ‘‘ Rosa pumila alpina Pimpinellae exacte folis (sic) sparsis spinis incurvis aquate purpae, Cupani, Pan. Sci. t. 61.” There is also a ticket: ‘‘ Rosa cretica montana fol. subrotundis glutinosis et villosis. Corolla rosea frutex humilis. Inst. Cor. 43." The reference is to Tournefort’s Corollarium, and Dr. B. Daydon Jackson informs us that the ticket is in the handwriting of Pietro Arduino (1728-1805), who sent many plants of Italian and garden origin to Linnaeus. It is a fruiting specimen and agrees in every respect with R. sicula, Tratt., Ros. ii. p. 68, as was suspected from the locality. R. Heckeliana Tratt., also occurs in Sicily, but is markedly different in its softly villous leaflets and petioles.
It is fortunate that the clearing up of the confusion about R. glutinosadoes not necessitate any change of name, for both name and character primarily belong to the plant figured by Sibthorp, though other things were inadvertedly included. This is in agreement with its use in later Floras. The Rosa glutinosa of cultivation, however, and figured at p. 467 of Miss Willmott's Monograph, difffers in its far more slender straight prickles, whilst the fruit is broadly ellipsoidal and twice as large as that figured by Sibthorp. The Kew plant of this name was obtained from Darmstadt in 1896, but its original source is not known. It very closely resembles R. dalmatica, A. Kern. (Bot. Zeitschr. xx. p. 10), excep that the latterhas globose fruit. This, however, Dr. Christ regards as a form of R. glutinosa, and we are inclined to think that it must be called R. glutinosa var. dalmatica, Borbas (Prim. Ros. Mon. Hung. p. 501), for Borbas, after describing the fruit as globose, adds "in cult. ovoideus,"  and this represents precisely the difference of the cultivated plant, so that it would be interesting to ascertain its wild origin and the reason for the modified form of the fruits. The question of hybridity is not excluded. Miss Willmott has a second plate called R. glutinosa (p. 468, tab.), which closely resembles a Cilician Rose to which the name R. poteriifolia, Schott & Kotschy , has been applied, but which is also considered to be a form of R. glutinosa. Whether any of the variations observed in R. glutinosa are the result of hybridisation cannot yet be determined with certainty, but natural hybrids with R. Heckeliana, R. glauca, and R. moschata are recorded by Dr. Christ, and it is possible that there may be others yet unrecognised. As to the Cretan Roses, further observations and materials are desirable.