Rosa tomentosa Harsh Downy-rose

Rosa tomentosa Harsh Downy-rose.

A few post flowering photos taken on 2nd July 2026 in Cambridgeshire.

Rosa tomentosa, outstanding feature is the very long pedicels with lots of glands.

The pedicel glands immediately rule out those tricky Dog-roses, so this is definitely an interesting plant. The length of the pedicels being up to 3cm is quite extreme. We are looking at a Sweet Briar or a Downy rose and long pedicels are really only found in either R. micrantha or R. tomentosa.

These two share many common features but R. micrantha would have 'few to many' obvious glands on the underside of the leaf. amongst some hairs. often limited to veins.

R. tomentosa would normally have high density of hairs on the leaf underside, although this is a variable feature and some plants have a much lower density. Stalked glandular hairs on the underside of the leaf can often be absent here in Cambridgeshire or on occasion quite a lot can be present.  If large glandular tips are present, (0.1mm diameter), consider looking for acicles just in case you have found the rare hybrid with R. rubiginosa.

R. tomentosa Underside of leaf showing quite dense hairs and the odd gland on the surface.

Many R. tomentosa plants in Cambridgeshire have a very high density of hairs, being fully tomentose and no glands visible on the leaf surface. This plant has a few glands on the surface and more on the secondary veins and lots on the main vein. It is the leaf surface glands that are most useful for identification in that they are small downy rose type at about 0.05mm diameter. The sweet briar equivalent glands would be 0.1-0.12mm in diameter.

At higher magnification they have stalks and a tiny glandular head not much thicker than the stalk.

The odour of leaf glands can be smelled, but is not as strong as that of R. rubiginosa or R. micrantha.  

So we have glandular pedicels, long pedicels, dense under leaf hairs and even some glands ( not always present) so next up is to look at the leaf margin.

The new BSBI Rose handbooks suggest the leaf margin of R. tomentosa should be biserrate or multi serrate. As usual, the major tips have hydathodes supplied by a vein, and the sides of the tips have secondary minor sub-tips with stalked glands.

 We do not have the major tip, then secondary smaller tip sequence here ( biserrate), just major tips with minor tips caused by the stalked glands. To me this is multi serrate. Tony O'Mahony in Ireland expects R. tomentosa to have multi serrate margins and biserrate or serrate edges may indicate  a cross to R. corymbifera, at least in County Cork. 

The distinction between hydathodes and glandular tips can occasionally become blurred as I have seen glandular tips which are at the end of a vein and also hydathodes which are not the normal conical shape and have a round ball, however this is unusual. See previous blog on Rose leaf margins.

This is all good for R. tomentosa but R. micrantha also has a similar leaf edge. Both are multi-serrate. Many other features are shared, like a flat to slightly convex disc and a narrow orifice.

R. tomentosa Slightly convex disc with a narrow orifice at 0.8mm max.(1/5th diameter. of disc.)

R. tomentosa Orifice small and you can just see some hairs in the styles although broken off to show the size of the orifice.                                                              

R. tomentosa Close up of orifice with cylindrical hole and some remaining styles and hairs.

According to the new handbook the styles can be glabrous or slightly hairy whereas in R. micrantha the styles should be glabrous (no hairs).   A minor point to suggest the plant is R. tomentosa.   

A wider orifice opens up other species like R. sherardii  and mollis and hybrids. It is always worth cutting a hip through the orifice to check shape and diameter as it is one of the more important features in confirming an identification.

To complete the set of photos, next up is a close up of the leaf stipule. 

R. tomentosa Leaf stipule and petiole ( leaf stalk). 

Not only the margin but also the stipule surface is covered with large stalked red glands. The margin is showing round stalked glands which are staying on, unlike the stipule glands on the Dog roses.

R. tomentosa Sepal, hairy on top surface and glandular beneath with pinnate side projections. often sepals can have leaf like extensions. 

These sepals are slightly reflexed when you might expect the sepals to be spreading-erect, however it is now known that the sepals of R. tomentosa  are very variable in the angle they take up and can be very variable on the same plant. They also can fall off quite quickly.

R. tomentosa 

Final shot of a prickle showing quite a strong straight shape whereas R. micrantha would have a more curved prickle.

Conclusion.

I was happy that this plant fitted the requirements of being a R. tomentosa. The narrow orifice is useful in discounting the other Downy roses ( R. sherardii and R. mollis, see separate blog) and was interested to see how many features were shared with R. micrantha. 

With all roses you have to look at all features before deciding what name to put on it and even then recheck to see if everything fits or suggests a hybrid. The main problem with hybrids is weighting the importance of features to decide what possible parents have been involved. Not easy.

Peter Leonard

Cottenham, Cambridgeshire, UK

July 2026 

Reference. Wild Roses of Great Britain and Ireland by Roger Maskew & Gareth Knass, BSBI Handbook no 26, 2025.

Additional photos.  R. tomentosa usually has hairs on upper surface of leaf which this plant did but the hairs were quite hard to see and was variable in density. R. micrantha usually does not have upper leaf hairs.

2Jul26, upper leaf. R. tomentosa.

A better photos from 2021 showing upper leaf hairs.

20Jul21, R. tomentosa, Royston.

Tolpis staticifolia from Salzburg.

Tolpis staticifolia from Salzburg.

A few holiday photos from a visit to Salzburg,  and a new plant for me. 

First plant of interest was found while visiting the Hohensalzburg Fortress overlooking Salzburg. 

Tolpis staticifolia, 3rd June 2026. 

  A slightly different yellow composite as it showed a dark centre to the flower. 

The dark centre attracted my attention, as this was something different.

Very narrow leaves, all basal and leafless stems helped identification.

Narrow leaves lacking hairs also with a paler main vein.

Close up view of the inner florets show a different terminal structure to the outer florets, which is why the centre is darker, although photos on the web show this is not always a prominent feature. 

Although I did not notice this at the time, the photo shows the ray florets (ligules) are hairy on the undersides, an unusual feature. The narrow phyllaries (involucral bracts) have cobwebby white hairs only.

Final shot showing flowering stems are simple or sparingly branched. 

Identification was based using the book, The Alpine Flowers of Britain and Europe by Christopher Grey-Wilson and Majorie Blaney, 1979.  On return from my holiday, I purchased Europe's Alpine Flowers by Bob Gibbons part of the WILDGuides series. This recent book covers more species and contains concise useful information. 

Tolpis staticifolia  was previously called Hieracium staticifolia and it is hard to find more detail on its characteristics.  The hairs on the underside of the ligules and the strange terminations to the inner ligules, which make the centre dark, are unusual, but I didn't find any reference to them in a limited search of either the web or standard literature.  

Peter Leonard

Cottenham, Cambridgeshire, UK

7th July 2026

 

Rosa canina (Dog-rose) identification.

Rosa canina (Dog-rose) identification.

With R.canina agg. being split into  three species, R. canina, R. corymbifera and R. squarrosa I thought I would take a few photos of a 'perfect'  R. canina (or R. canina stricto sensu) in Cambridgeshire.  

The main problem is finding an example of R. canina s.s. which conforms to the new handbook description and does not show features of the two northern dog-roses or R. corymbifera and R. squarrosa.

I don't want an example which has:-

Glaucous coloured underside to leaves or folded leaves.

Zig zag stems.

Stems that show a red colour.

Short pedicels suggesting hybrid with Northern Dog-rose.

Short pedicels with large bracts that obscure the pedicels. R. canina s.s. should have pedicel length in the range 1-2.5cm whereas northern dog-roses should be in range 0.5-1cm and the hybrids could be anywhere, but I would like an example with some pedicels at least 1cm. 

Large hips especially if round/spherical.

R. canina s.s. should have a 'temple dome' shaped uni-serrate margin to the leaves without any glands, so NO glands.

Soft hairs or glands on the petiole/rachis. 

Odd looking prickles.

Leaf stipule glands that stay on and are round rather than slightly elongated.

That's probably enough features I don't want, but there are probably more. This proved quite hard as most R. canina potential plants failed, for one reason or another. 

Pedicel has no glands. A key feature of the Dog-roses.

My selected potential R. canina growing in Wicken Fen.

Erect and arching stems.

Pedicel has no glands and is over 1cm, not enclosed by bract.

Sepal is pinnate and should not have too many secondary side projections or too many glands to be acceptable for R. canina.   Sepals of the three dog-roses R. canina, R squarrosa and R. corymbifera become reflexed as the hip ripens and fall off early.   Sepals of R. squarrosa might have more glands on the tips of the pinnate side projections.

Orifice is narrow and the disc is conical. A conical disc is very common in Cambridgeshire for R. canina.  Sometimes this conical disc is given the name R. canina var. spuria according to the new handbook. The orifice is deep and has vertical groves from forming around the style. 

Next photo shows the sepals have already become reflexed even though flowering has only just finished and the hips have not started to turn red. The rate that sepals move seems very variable even on a single plant but the fact that on this plant they have reflexed early is a good sign for R. canina.

Next the leaves. Green on top and flat not folded.

The leaf has several important features to consider. 

Uniserrate margin with hydathodes only, no glands.

Underside not glaucous just a paler green. Margin is uniserrate, no glands.

Petiole and rachis has no glands or hairs on. A key feature.


Leaf stipule.

The leaf stipule glands are falling off and the remaining ones are elongated in shape which conforms to Tony O'Mahony's discovery that roses in the subsection caninae ( Dog-roses) have these features. See previous blog that covers this subject. I always pick a new leaf from a new shoot for this test if possible.

Prickles.

It often surprises me the variation in prickles on a single bush but the above conform to what I would expect for a R. canina, in that they have a broad base and are variably hooked. I have seen quite a few potential plants of R. canina locally, near Swavesey, that have very straight prickles which don't look right and suggest some introgression, but what with, is a puzzle.

Conclusion.

The above photos I think are a good example of what a Rosa canina should look like at the post flowering stage. The well known problem that every Dog-rose bush looks slightly different, so you have to accept quite a lot of variation but where to draw the line and decide it no longer fits the 'perfect' R. canina is a challenge.  Some introgression is allowed, otherwise very few roses would be identified beyond R. canina Agg.

Finding a good example of R. canina was quite difficult as most plants have features that could indicate more than a little introgression with another, now separated species, either R. corymbifera, R. squarrosa or more frequently R. vosagiaca / R. caesia. Hybrids with species outside the Sub-group caninae also occur and another rose bush at Wicken Fen seemed to some features of R. rubiginosa with large glands on the underside of the leaves and just the odd acicle.

The above is a personal view but based on the new BSBI Rose handbook which was published in late 2025.

Peter Leonard

Cottenham, Cambridgeshire.

July 2026

An example of a plant that didn't make the grade.

There above photo of a rose near Longstanton, shows a potential R. canina but the sepals are not reflexing at all and are starting to fall off. This suggests some introgression with either R. caesia or R. vosagiaca ( Northern Dog Roses) and the leaves were also folded more than I would have liked. All other features of this bush aligned with R. canina and the observation than no hairs were present on the leaf might suggest this plant has a tiny amount of R. vosagiaca in it. R. canina x R. vosagiaca = R. xsubcanina.

Rosa squarrosa ( Glandular Dog-rose) in Cambridgeshire

Rosa squarrosa ( Glandular Dog-rose) in Cambridgeshire.

Now that Dog Rose R. canina aggregate  has been split into three separate species and documented in a new BSBI handbook, Wild Roses of Great Britain and Ireland by Roger Maskew and Gareth Knass, BSBI Handbook no 26, I thought I would try and find a Rosa squarrosa to photograph.

Glandular Dog-rose, R. squarrosa, 17th June 26, Cambridgeshire.

Previously R. squarrosa was regarded as a subspecies of R. canina under the sub-species group Dumales.

 R. canina agg. is now split into three species ( Canina, corymbifera and squarrosa ). This creates the complication of defining each of the hybrids between them and also the Northern Dog-rose,  which has also been split into R. vosagiaca (Glaucous Dog-rose)and R. caesia (Northern Dog-rose). 

This particular plant was surprisingly green but I would not assume this is a characteristic of squarrosa or any other dog-rose.

The first characteristic feature I check is the pedicel ( flower stalk below the hypanthium (hip)) as dog- roses should have a clean stalk without any glands, which is the case here. 

The sepals are pinnate with a few glands. They are reflexed even at this early post flower stage, which  fits with squarrosa, canina and corymbifera. At this early stage, just after flowering, sepals are moving from their flowering position of being out and downward, pointing at about 45 degrees. Timing of the sepal movement seems to be quite variable and sepal position is normally looked at later when the hips have turned red.   In this particular example the sepals have moved to a reflexed position quickly.

Hypanthium, sepals, and pedicels. Group of two hips on long pedicels.

The photo below shows the sepal with pinnate lobes, which have glandular tipped side projections and also a leaflike extension. Despite R. squarrosa being glabrous (no hairs), hairs are allowed on the sepals and on the stigma cluster.

The photo below shows the disc and stigma/styles. The disc is quite conical which is common in Rosa canina and I assume can often occur in squarrosa. The stigma covers about half the conical disc and has some short hairs visible.

Other characteristics are that, the pedicels were between 1 to 2cm against a handbook range of 0.8-2cm, so that's OK, although I don't find pedicel length reliable as it seems to vary a lot even on the same bush. Extremely short or long pedicels are worth noting.

  The orifice was small at about or less than a 1/5th of the disc diameter. Note the long thin hole that the stigma threads pass through and its gradual opening out into the hip capsule. One of the few criticisms of the old handbook was the drawing of the R. canina sectioned hip by Margaret Gold, which showed a rapidly opening orifice inside. This is not typical of R. canina and I suspect the sample  she was given  may have satisfied the characteristics of R. canina, but had some Northern Dog-rose in it. Overall her drawings were really very good and in some cases better than the photos used in the new handbook.

Cut hypanthium showing orifice and domed disc. R. squarrosa

An example of an atypical orifice suggesting hybrid with Northern Dog-rose or just a variation due to the flat disc?.

Also a very round shape to the hypanthium/hip.  Hip shape is variable according to the new handbook including spherical, although in Cambridgeshire I speculate that a spherical hip may suggest some hybrid influence.  Hard to prove though.

An example of a canina type orifice with a almost flat disc.

Next up is to look at a leaf.

Leaflets 5-7 and broadly ovate to ovate-lanceolate, acute or subacute, rounded at base, according to the new handbook.     The leaves shown below are not drawn out to an attenuated tip, are well spaced and are hairless, as required, to be conforming with squarrosa. Tony O'Mahony, a rose expert from Ireland, has noted that leaf shape is highly variable in R. canina and this is probably true for R. squarrosa. 

'This field study revealed that the only common denominators between the various R. canina populations, was that they all displayed glabrous, non-glandular foliage.

Yet, in stark contrast to these two points of uniformity, was the remarkable fact that the

leaves of this species proved bewilderingly polymorphic, my observations recording

considerable morphological plasticity in leaflet shape, dimensions, toothing, texture and

colour – not only between populations, but often between individual, adjacent bushes in

hedgebanks and hedgerows. Moreover, no correlation could be found between these leaf

forms and other features of these bushes. '

This insight from Tony O'Mahony is really useful and it's pity that the new handbook does not highlight such information.

R. squarrosa.

Another important feature I look at, is the leaf stipule glands, a feature not mentioned in the new handbook, but which has been found to be really important. See previous blog on this feature, Identification of Roses, Leaf Stipules. 

Leaf stipule showing dense glands still present and mainly round in shape with only the occasional elongated gland. This is a bit odd as the dog-roses should have glands that fall off quickly and are elongated in shape. These are staying on and are mainly round balls, not the elongated shape. When confronted with a feature that does not quite fit, a larger sample should be looked at, ideally from more than one major stem.  

The petiole (leaf stem) is also shown in this photo and shows a lot of stalked glandular protrusions. The glandular protrusions being a key feature of R. squarrosa. Note also no soft hairs.

Next photo is of the rachis which also has lots of stalked red glands. Ignore the fibres brought in by the wind but note the rachis has no soft hairs.

The major feature of R. squarrosa is that it has no hairs (except on the styles and sepals), being glabrous. The stalked glands are not included as hairs.  Below is a photo of the rachis of R. corymbifera showing the dense soft hairs which are its key feature.

   R. corymbifera rachis with dense soft hairs. 

Back to my potential R. squarrosa. Next check leaf margin.

Leaf margin showing bi-serrate edge with the secondary tips having short stalked and sessile red  round glands. The primary tips have hydathodes which are conical in shape and lack the liquid ball, unlike the round glandular tips on the secondary tips. Note the hydathodes have veins running to them.

According to the new handbook R. squarrosa can have either bi-serrate to multi-serrate margins. 

The underside of the leaf is glabrous, not a hair to be seen even on the midrib, just the occasional stalked red gland.

Prickles of R. squarrosa.

Conclusion.

This particular plant matches the expected features of what a Rosa squarrosa should look like, with the only aberrant feature being the round, more permanent glands on the stipules. This does suggest a slight introgression in the past with a Sweet Briar or a Downy Rose but no other sign of this was apparent. The bright green colour of the leaves was also unusual. 

 I think this plant could be regarded as belonging to the species as defined by the new handbook and we don't need to investigate further hybrids. A small amount of introgression is acceptable. The most common hybrid would be with Northern Dog-rose now split into R. caesia and R. vosagiaca.

The hybrid with either of the Northern Dog-roses would tend to show reddish stems, which were completely lacking in the plant described above. The new handbook says R. squarrosa, 'often strongly red-pigmented in open habitats in late summer' so the red stems appear to be an unreliable feature?

The influence of either caesia or vosagiaca would tend to have groups of hips (3-4)  on unusually short pedicels with large bracts that obscure the pedicels and large hips, densely hairy styles forming a dome-shaped head and blue-green back to the leaflets.

The plant above had 1-2(3) hips with longer pedicels. The pedicels were towards the 2cm range and the bracts did not cover them.  Before these splits, R. canina group ( canina agg.) were the most common rose in Cambridgeshire followed by hybrids with the Northern Dog-rose, despite the fact that Northern Dog-roses do not occur this far south, being limited to north of a line between the Severn Estuary and the Wash. On recent field trips I have found the Northern dog-rose hybrids to be very common but working out what are the parents are is not easy. Hybrids are fertile and backcross.

Hopefully these photos will encourage the purchase of the new rose handbook. It's not perfect but is a major advance. It is photo based and covers a wide range of rose species and hybrids. The increase in the number of hybrids will be quite a challenge.

 Although the conventional wisdom suggests that roses should only be examined in late summer based on the hip being fully formed and sepal position/falling off being critical, I think a lot can be done when roses are in flower. Sepal position changes as the hips ripen and this seems to have very variable timing.

Difficult plants may often require a second visit to aid final identification. 

Finally I have been caught out several times by two different species growing together with intertwined stems which caused confusion, until that was pointed out by someone more expert than I.

Peter Leonard

Cambridgeshire

June 2026

See also, previous blog on Identification of Roses, Leaf Stipules.