(1818)  Page(s) 285.  
 
[Joseph Sabine comments on December 20, 1817 on the first volume of De Candolle's Systema Naturale Regni Vegetabilis, "which has just arrived from Paris"]
...In Moutan he has made the double one the type of his species, and under that has referred to our two double varieties; placing P. papaveracea as the second variety, and suggesting the possibility that it may be a distinct species.

(1818)  Page(s) 285.  
 
[Joseph Sabine comments on December 20, 1817 on the first volume of De Candolle's Systema Naturale Regni Vegetabilis, "which has just arrived from Paris"]
...In Moutan he has made the double one the type of his species, and under that has referred to our two double varieties; placing P. papaveracea as the second variety, and suggesting the possibility that it may be a distinct species.

(1818)  Page(s) 285.  
 
[Joseph Sabine comments on December 20, 1817 on the first volume of De Candolle's Systema Naturale Regni Vegetabilis, "which has just arrived from Paris"]
...In Moutan he has made the double one the type of his species, and under that has referred to our two double varieties; placing P. papaveracea as the second variety, and suggesting the possibility that it may be a distinct species.

(1818)  Page(s) 285.  
 
[Joseph Sabine comments on December 20, 1817 on the first volume of De Candolle's Systema Naturale Regni Vegetabilis, "which has just arrived from Paris"]
...Of P. albiflora he makes two varieties only; his a, judging by the reference to Andr. Repos. 64, is our P. albiflora α. vestalis ; his β. flore roseo is our P. albiflora γ. Tatarica, as I conclude from his reference to Par. Lond. 78, though the plant there figured is described as having " petala pallide rosea," whilst that with “ petala rosea,” therein noticed as another variety, is either our P. albiflora ε  rubescens, or one which, if ever it did exist in our gardens, is now lost. 

(1818)  Page(s) 285.  
 
[Joseph Sabine comments on December 20, 1817 on the first volume of De Candolle's Systema Naturale Regni Vegetabilis, "which has just arrived from Paris"]
...Of P. albiflora he makes two varieties only; his a, judging by the reference to Andr. Repos. 64, is our P. albiflora α. vestalis ; his β. flore roseo is our P. albiflora γ. Tatarica, as I conclude from his reference to Par. Lond. 78, though the plant there figured is described as having " petala pallide rosea," whilst that with “ petala rosea,” therein noticed as another variety, is either our P. albiflora ε  rubescens, or one which, if ever it did exist in our gardens, is now lost. 

(1818)  Page(s) 285.  
 
[Joseph Sabine comments on December 20, 1817 on the first volume of De Candolle's Systema Naturale Regni Vegetabilis, "which has just arrived from Paris"]
...Of P. albiflora he makes two varieties only; his a, judging by the reference to Andr. Repos. 64, is our P. albiflora α. vestalis ; his β. flore roseo is our P. albiflora γ. Tatarica, as I conclude from his reference to Par. Lond. 78, though the plant there figured is described as having " petala pallide rosea," whilst that with “ petala rosea,” therein noticed as another variety, is either our P. albiflora ε  rubescens, or one which, if ever it did exist in our gardens, is now lost. 

(1818)  Page(s) 286.  
 
[Joseph Sabine comments on December 20, 1817 on the first volume of De Candolle's Systema Naturale Regni Vegetabilis, "which has just arrived from Paris"] 
...Our two species P. anomala and P. tenuifolia agree with those of M. De Candolle; but he has kept as a distinct species P. hybrida, adding to the statements of Pallas, the authority of Dr. Fischer, who in his correspondence has assured him he found it growing on the northern side of Mount Caucasus, and that it was not an hybrid plant, but a genuine species. Being fully satisfied that Pallas's plant, figured and described in the Flora Rossica, and which was from a cultivated specimen, is only P. tenuifolia in a state it sometimes assumes, but different from what it usually puts on, I must still continue my opinion of their identity. In Dr. Fischer's Catalogue of the Garden at Gorinki near Moscow, printed in 1808, he does not enumerate P. hybrida. Should this plant, however, after more investigation, prove distinct from P. tenuifolia, I shall rejoice in the circumstance, as our list of species of this charming genus will thereby be increased; but if P. hybrida be distinct, it cannot be set down as one now cultivated in this country.

(1818)  Page(s) 286.  
 
[Joseph Sabine comments on December 20, 1817 on the first volume of De Candolle's Systema Naturale Regni Vegetabilis, "which has just arrived from Paris"]
...I conjecture that he is not acquainted with more than the one double variety, P. albiflora β. Whitleji, to the figure of which in Andr. Bot. Repos. he refers.

(1818)  Page(s) 286-287.  
 
[Joseph Sabine comments on December 20, 1817 on the first volume of De Candolle's Systema Naturale Regni Vegetabilis, "which has just arrived from Paris"]
...P. officinalis, on the authority of several French authors, has been considered hitherto a native of different parts of France: it seems from the personal observation of M. De Candolle, most probable that other species have been mistaken for this; and I should not be surprised, if subsequent examination of specimens from the natural habitats, should very much reduce the number of synonyms of modern writers which have been hitherto applied to this species, and that by this operation the native places of growth of those new species described by us from cultivated plants only, should be discovered.

(1818)  Page(s) 232-234.  
 
[From "A Synopsis of the British Species of Rosa", by Joseph Woods, Esq. F.L.S. Read April 16 and June 4, 1816]
26. ROSA ARVENSIS. 
R. stylis unitis, aculeis uncinatis surculorum sparsis, foliolis ellipticis inæqualiter serratis. 
R. arvensis. Willd. ii. 1066. Fl. Brit. ii. 538. Engl. Bot. ii. t. 188. Lam. et Dec. Fl. Fr. iv. 438. 
R. canina β. Fl. Germ. i. 218. & ii. 560. 
R. repens. Gmel. Fl. Bad. Als. ii. 418. 
R. sylvestris. Römer's Archiv. B. i. st. ii. p. 33. 
R. sylvestris minor flore albo. Raii Syn. 455. 
Frutex altitudine 2—4-pedalis ; surculis longissimis, decumbentibus, flagelliformibus, junioribus glaucescentibus, senioribus viridibus. Rami vagi, debiles, glauco-virides e luce purpureo-fusci, aculeati; aculei surculorum sparsi, basi latissimi, mucrone plerumque adunco instructi, ramorum graciliores. Petioli nunc hirti nunc glandulosi, rarius utrumque aculeati. Stipulæ lineares, apicem versus nunc serratæ nunc glandulosonunc piloso-ciliatæ, glabræ, eæ floribus cymosis propiores foliis gradatim deficientibus, demum in bracteas lanceolatas, vix stipulis latiores, immutatæ. Foliola 5, par in. ferius ceteris minus, elliptica vel subrotundo-elliptica, plana, crenato-serrata, interdum apicem versus inciso-serrata, nervo interdum subtus pilosa, sæpius utrinque glaberrima. Pedunculi 1—8, interdum etiam usque ad 15, elongati, glandulis subsessilibus induti. Receptaculum plerumque ovatum, rarius in locis sterilibus subglobosum, fuscum, glabrum. Calycis foliola ovata vel subrotundo-ovata, nunc hirta nune glandulosa, pinnulis parvis lanceolatis integerrimis hic illic instructa, Flores albi, expansi. Styli in columellam glabram persistentem porrecti; stigmata in globulum congesta. Fructus formâ multum variat, ab elliptico-oblongo etiam ad accurate globosum, posterior tamen vix nisi in pedunculis solitariis invenitur : maturi color sanguineus.

Hedges and bushy places in the southern and midland counties ; rare in the mountainous districts. 
β. Fruit glandular as well as the peduncle. At Shermanbury in Sussex. Mr. Borrer. By the high rocks at Tunbridge-Wells. Mr. Borrer has communicated to me specimens remarkably long in the leaves and fruit. This approaches in some degree to the R. prostrata, Lam. et Dec. Fl. Fr. vi. 536, which seems to be a variety of this species with shining persistent leaves; but the latter circumstance has not occurred to me in any English specimen.
This Rose has hitherto been separated from its nearest affinities on account of the shape of the fruit: but this has been done erroneously; for though the full-grown fruit is sometimes nearly globular, the receptacle, while the plant is in flower, is decidedly ovate, except occasionally in starved specimens: it is generally longer in the cymes of flowers than when solitary, differing in this respect from R. canina and its allies, which have usually among the cymes rounder receptacles than those of the solitary flowers.
The midrib of the leaflet is sometimes furnished with hairs : this peculiarity will occasionally occur on some branches and not on others of the same plant.
The habit of this Rose is a low bush with long trailing shoots frequently covered with a profusion of flowers opening quite flat. The buds are faintly tinged with red, but the expanded petals are I believe always white. Mr. Sabine has what he considers as a double variety of R. arvensis, which retains the blush colour in the flowers, and is extremely beautiful. In this the serratures of the leaves are furnished with glands which have the appearance of double serratures, as in R. provincialis, R. gallica, R. damascena, and R. alba.
In the long shoots of this plant the aculei frequently appear to consist of a short mucro on an expanded base. As the ramifications are repeated, it often happens that the expanded base di. minishes in proportionate size, and the mucro becomes a hooked prickle more round and slender than in the family of R. canina; the smallest prickles are even sometimes quite straight.
The distinct, smooth, lengthened column of styles is alone sufficient to distinguish it from every British Rose except R. systyla, from which it may be known by its decumbent shoots and expanded flowers ; the leaflets also are flatter, the serratures wider apart, and the whole plant of a grayer colour. When once known, their general appearance is so different that it is impossible to confound them. Among the exotics, R. sempervirens comes rear to it in habit, while in essential character it is easily separated by its shining leaves and villous styles. R. sempervirens of Roth, Fl. Germ. i. 218. ii. 556; R. umbellata of Gmelin, Fl. Bad. Als. ii. 425; Lam. et Dec. Fl. Fr. vi. 532, appears to me a very different species : it is not an evergreen ; the fruit is globose or nearly so, and the leaves are doubly serrated and glandular beneath. Gmelin l.c. remarks that it is allied to R. Eglanteria. It is perhaps as near to R. Borreri as to any British Rose; but it is scarcely possible -to conceive how this could have been mistaken for t. 246 of the Hortus Elthamensis, the only plate referred to by Linnæus, and clearly pointing out his plant.
R. semperflorens is another plant of this family, and, unless the distinct styles of these Roses should make it necessary to separate them, R. indica. It will also contain R. moschata, R. multiflora, and R. sinica. Some Roses from China, of which specimens exist in the Banksian Herbarium, will probably form another family allied to this.
The hip of this species has a finer flavour than that of any other British Rose; that of R. systyla does not much differ in this respect.