Book  (1880)  Page(s) 40.  Includes photo(s).
 
R. stricta Donn. R. americana Waitz. Description

Book  (1876)  Page(s) fasc. 4, p. 458.  
 
In Primitiae Monographie Rosarum. —Matériaux pour servir à l'Histoire des Roses, par François Crépin.
QUATRIÈME FASCICULE. XII. —Prodrome D'une Monographie Des Roses Américaines:
12. Rosa americana VVaitz. — D'après un échantillon authentique que j'ai vu dans l'herbier royal de Berlin, cette forme est une variété cultivée du R. pimpinellifolia à folioles pubescentes en dessous et à dents simples.

Translation:
12. Rosa Americana Waitz. - According to an authentic sample that I saw in the royal herbarium of Berlin, this form is a cultivated variety of R. pimpinellifolia with leaflets pubescent beneath and with simple teeth.

Book  (1876)  Page(s) fasc. 4, p. 457.  
 
QUATRIÈME FASCICULE. XII. —Prodrome D'une Monographie Des Roses Américaines:
7. Rosa stricta Mühl. — Lindley signale cette forme en Amérique d'après Dillenius et Mühlenberg. Il est à remarquer, en premier lieu, que cet auteur s'est trompé en identifiant la figure de Dillenius dont j'ai parlé ci-dessus à son R. stricta, car cette figure se rapporte exactement à une variété du R. alpina. Il ne lui reste donc plus que l'autorité de Mühlenberg pour attribuer le R. stricla à l'Amérique. Lindley a décrit son R. stricta sur une plante cultivée qui, d'après des échantillons authentiques que j'ai vus, est une forme du R. pimpinellifolia. Dans tout les cas, je n'ai vu aucune forme américaine qui se rapprochât de ce R. stricta et je suis à peu près certain que celui-ci n'est pas américain. W.-J. Hooker (Fl. Bor.-Amer., I, p. 200) signale une variété du R. stricta le long du Saskatchewan d'après une plante recueillie par Drummond, mais il est probable que cette prétendue variété du R. stricta est le R. blanda var. setigera. Torrey, sur la foi des renseignements de Hooker, signale également cette variété du R. stricta sur les bords du Saskatchewan.

Translation: 
7. Rosa stricta Mühl. - Lindley notes this form in America after Dillenius and Mühlenberg. It should be noted, first, that the author was mistaken in identifying the figure of Dillenius I mentioned above as his R. stricta, because this figure refers precisely to a variety of R. alpina. All that remains therefore is the authority to award the Mühlenberg R. stricta to America. Lindley described his R. stricta on a cultivated plant that, according to authentic samples I've seen, is a form of R. pimpinellifolia. In any case, I have seen no American form that can be reconciled with the R. stricta and I am almost certain that it is not American. W.-J. Hooker (Fl. Bor. Amer., I, p. 200) reports a variety of R. stricta along the Saskatchewan after a plant collected by Drummond, but it is likely that this alleged variety of R. stricta is R. blanda var. setigera [ed. note: this is R. arkansana]. Torrey, on the basis of information Hooker, also reported this variety of R. stricta on the banks of Saskatchewan.

Book  (1840)  Page(s) 461.  
 
 R. stricta (Lindl.) : much branched ; stems armed with numerous setaceous scattered, often deciduous prickles; flowering branches mostly naked ; leaflets 7-9, oval, firm, glabrous, not shining, the petiole glandularhispid; stipules lanceolate, mostly glandular-ciliate ; flowers 1-3, on glabrous or glandular-hispid peduncles ; calyx-segments spreading ; fruit ovoid, pendulous.— Lindl.! Ros. p. 42, t. 7 ; Seringe, in DC. l. c. R. pendulina, Ait.? 
β. lower surface of the leaves pubescent. Hook. fl. Bor.-Am. 1. p. 200.
On the Saskatchawan (β.), Drummond.-This species is perhaps too closely allied to R. alpina. We are confident that it has never been found within the limits of the United States. For this species Lindley quotes Muhlenberg's Catalogue: but Muhlenberg seems not to know the plant (giving no locality or observation), and refers to Donn for the name. The species was established on garden specimens, which may or may not have been of Annerican origin. It is uncertain whether the plant figured by Dillenius (Elth. t. 245, f. 317) belongs to R. alpina or the present species. On it R. pendula of Linnæus (who states it to be a native of Europe), is founded, and doubtless R. pendulina, Ait., which Seringe considers a variety of R. alpina.

Book  (1838)  Page(s) 4.  
 
.... On the outskirts of the Pennsylvanian forests, grows the Rosa stricta, with flowers of a pale red;

Website/Catalog  (1831)  Page(s) 60.  
 
ROSA. Rose.
Garden Varieties of Scots Roses, all of which blossom early, and are mostly of low Growth.
17  Americàna...  Pink

Website/Catalog  (1826)  Page(s) 68.  
 
ROSA stricta.

Website/Catalog  (1820)  
 
Americana [is also listed in Loddiges' catalogue for 1818]

Book  (1820)  Page(s) 82.  
 
Rosa americana. Woody. Hardy. .... 4 Groschen

Book  (1820)  Page(s) 42-44.  Includes photo(s).
 
ROSA stricta. Tab. 7.

R. ramosissima, ramulis inermibus, fructu elongato pendulo.
R. sanguisorbae majoris folio, fructu longo pendulo ex nova anglia Dill. elth. 325. t. 245. f. 317.
R. virginiana Herm. diss. 19?
R. pendulina Linn. sp. 705.
R. stricta Muhl. cat. 50.
R. carolina & Ait. kew, ed. alt. 3. 260. Lawr. ros. t. 36. (pessima).
R. suavis Willd. enum. suppl. 37?
Hab. in America septentrionalis Novanglia, (Dillenius); Pennsylvania, (Muhl.). (v. v. c.)

Branches erect, three or four feet high, pale green, covered all over with small, weak, nearly equal setæ, except at the extremities, which are unarmed, like the very numerous, slender branchlets. Leaflets 9-11, roundish, of a firm texture, the lowest pair smaller than the rest, glaucous. Flowers bright red. Fruit before maturity, speckled with little pale spots. Otherwise with the characters of R. rubella.
Notwithstanding the close resemblance between this and the foregoing, I feel no hesitation in distinguishing them. R. rubella has drooping very weak branches, surculi bending at the end, and hispid to their extreme points; its leaves are green, fruit small, ovaria from 12 to 18, pericarps ovate and somewhat pointed. R. stricta, on the contrary, has nearly erect branches and surculi and branchlets without any hispidity: its leaves are somewhat glaucous, fruit large, and, before ripeness, covered with little pale blotches: the ovaries are from 25 to 35, and the pericarps are round, large, and much more hairy. Rubella frequently has aculei, stricta never. It may be urged that I have in other instances rejected much better characters as insufficient to distinguish species; and with apparent reason. But when it is remembered that there is no instance of a North American Rose being found in Europe, and that this must form an exception, if it be deemed not distinct from rubella, I shall have the important difference in geographical distribution in my favour.
It has been known in this country ever since the days of Dillenius, who raised it in Sherard's garden from seeds received from New England, and published a figure of it in the splendid Hortus Elthamensis. From not attending sufficiently to his description, much confusion has arisen in its history, since his figure has been cited by every one to a variety of a different species, probably the offspring of cultivation; and thus my R. alpina y has been pronounced a North American plant, to the great perplexity of botanists of that country, who have long sought for it in vain. To explain how this has originated, it becomes necessary to trace the history of the plant from its source.
The specimen of R. pendulina in the herbarium of Linnaeus belongs decidedly, as I have observed already, to the plant always known under that name in our gardens. It is the end of a branchlet, and not unlike Dillenius's figure. It does not appear from what quarter he received it, and may therefore have been known to him only in a dried state, which will sufficiently explain the cause of his error in quoting the Hortus Elthamensis. In the first edition of Species Plantarum the specific phrase of R. pendulina is “fructibus oblongis pendulis,” which served to distinguish it from the rest of his species, because he was not then acquainted with R. alpina. But before the second edition appeared he acquired this last plant, and then it became necessary to alter the character of pendulina to “germinibus ovatis glabris, pedunculis cauleq. hispidis, petiolis inermibus, fructibus pendulis;” which proves beyond a doubt that he held the “stipites innumeris spinis tenuibus et innoxiis deorsum flexis horridi” of Dillenius, which are not found on the R. pendulina of Aiton, to be essential to his species. In this state he left it. In the first edition of Hortus Kewensis the definition is altered to “inermis, germinibus oblongis, pedunculis petiolisque hispidis, caule ramisque glabris, fructibus pendulis,” clearly intended for the pendulina of our gardens. From what cause this change was made I cannot conjecture, for Dr. Solander, whose manuscripts were certainly used in the genus, was well aware of its not being the plant of Linnaeus. Here, however, the mistake originated, and the justly high authority of that excellent work has undoubtedly prevented its being sooner detected.