(1886)  Page(s) 192.  
 
This is the place to refer again to the Rose described by Mr. Regel as R. Maximowicziana. In my Primitiae, pages 528-530, I have spoken at length about this singular form that I was inclined to regard as a variety of R. multiflora. Today, with the knowledge that we have of the characters of Synstylae, this last opinion is no longer admissible: R. Maximowicziana cannot be a variety of R. multiflora; it is rather with R. Wichuraiana that one has to look for affinity. First and foremost, one should look for whether it is a legitimate species or whether it is not a hybrid product. I am not far from thinking that hybridization has not remained foreign to its production, but I reserve the right to discuss this question in a later work.