Rosa kamchatica: β. nitens.

Botanical Register (1824) t. 824
Shining-leaved Kamchatka Rose.
Nat. ord. ROSACEAE verae.
ROSA. Suprâ vol. 1. fol. 40.

Div. II. Feroces. Rami tomento persistente vestiti. Fructus nudu. Lindl. ros. mon. p. 3.

R. Kamchatica, aculeis infra stipularibus falcatis majoribus, foliis opacis. Lindl. l. c.

R. Kamchatica. Vent. eels. t. 67. Ait. Kew. ed. alt. 3. 259. Pers. syn. 2. 47. Smith in Rees in I. Lindley in hot. reg. t. 19. Tratt. syn. bot.ser. 15

(β) nitens, foliis lucidis pallidè viridibus.

Frutex erectus, ramosus, surculis parcè tomentosis, brevibus, rubris, undique aculeis setisque incequalibus, rectis, sub stipulis majoribus, consitus. Aculei ramorum ut in surculis. Folia Kamchaticae, sed pallide viridia, nitida, utrinque glaberrima, nervo medio subtus et petiolo pilosis. Flores late carmosini, solitarii, sepalis integris, acuminatis, glandulosis. Fructus pyriformes pedunculique sparsim glandulosi.

This remarkable variety of Rosa Kamchaticae was sent from Holland, by Mr. A. C. Van Eeden, to the Horticultural Society, in 1821. Our drawing was made in the Chiswick garden in May last.

It is quite as hardy and easy of cultivation as the type of the species; from which it is chiefly distinguished by its glossy naked leaves, redder flowers, and more erect mode of growth. In the falcate form of the prickles immediately below the stipules, and in their greater size, it remains true to the character assigned the species in the Rosarum Monographia.

M. Trattinnick is singularly unfortunate in his observations upon this species. He shrewdly remarks, that it must not be confounded with R. rugosa of Thunberg; at the same time asserting that species to be the same as R. ferox of our gardens; although all the evidence of which we are in possession respecting it goes to prove directly the contrary. He also adds, for the benefit, doubtless, of such of his countrymen as are not learned in English, that Mr. Woods refers to R. Kamchatka the following: viz. Rosa altaica, R. ochroleuca Swz. and R. suavis Willd. in which opinion he does not agree. Mr. Woods's words, in the Linn, trans. 12. p. 189. are, speaking of R. rubella, spinosissima, involuta, Doniana, gracilis, and Sabini, as constituting the English portion of the tribe of spinosissima, " I venture to mention R. Kamchatka as the only foreign addition to the tribe already known." If the German version of Mr. Woods's paper contains the statement alluded to by M. Trattinnick, it must be a statement of the German editor.

R. Kamchatka is placed in Trattinnick's Series 15. (Woodsiana), along with various species having little beyond generic affinity with it, or with each other; while R. ferox, from which it is not easily distinguished, forms, by itself, a 14th Series (Hoppeana), under the erroneous name of R. rugosa, as we have above stated.

An erect branching shrub, with short red surculi, which are slightly downy and covered all over with unequal straight aculei and setae, of which those under the stipules are largest. The prickles of the branches much as in the surculi. Leaves like those of R. Kamchatka; but pale green, shining, quite smooth on both sides, the middle nerve and stalk only being hairy. Flowers bright red, solitary, with entire, acuminate glandular sepals. Fruit pyriform, and stalks with a few scattered glands.—J. L.

CybeRose note: Lindley insisted that R. ferox was not the same as R. rugosa. He has previously distinguished R. Kamchatka from R. ferox in part because its leaves were not shining. In this specimen, however, Lindley did not mind the shining leaves.