978 116. LAURINEEX. 
Bot. Lugd.-Bat. ii. p. 1955 Franch. et Kavat. Enum. Pl. Jap. i. 
p. 411; Engler, Bot. Jahrb. vi. p. 57 (B. glaucescens, Blume) ; 
Maxim. in Mél. Biol. xi. p. 536. 
Laurus indica, Thunb. Fl. Jap. p. 173, nec Linn. 
Machilus japonica, Sieb. et Zucc. Fl. Jap. Fam. Nat. ii. n. 705; Mazim. 
in Mél. Biol. xii. p. 536. 
Machilus rimosa, Blume in Mus. Bot. Lugd.-Bat. i. p. 330; Benth. FI. 
Hongk. p. 291. 
CukkraxG: Tientai mountains at 2000 feet (Faber!); For- 
Mosa: Tamsui (Oldham, 451, 452 !), Kelung (Ford:); Huren : 
Changyang, Ichang, Patung and neighbourhood (A. Henry, 
1112, 1252, 2194, 3627, 5232, 5232 A, 6121, 7782, 7782 A, 77883 !) ; 
SzEcHvEN : South Wushan (A. Henry, 5503, 5503 A!); Hoxe- 
KONG (Champion! Wright!); Conran AncuirELAGO: Port Ha- 
milton (Wilford, 686! Oldham, 705!). Mus. Brit. ; Herb. Kew. 
Japan. 
Apparently a very common tree iu Central China, and having 
a wide latitudinal range. With a very copious series of spe- 
cimens before us we cannot separate M. Thunbergii, M. japonica, 
and M. rimosa; and the late Mr. Maximowiez seems to have held 
much the same opinion, though he retained tbem all three in the 
work cited above. Concerning the second he says :—“ An igitur 
tantum M. Thunbergii var. umbrosa habenda?" ; and of M. ri- 
mosa he says :—“ A simillima sequente [M. Thunbergii] distin- 
guenda tegmentis exterioribus tomentosis (neque tantum cilio- 
latis), ramulis novellis ochraceo-tomentosis (neque glabris) et 
paniculis folia equantibus aut superantibus (nec brevioribus) "— 
differences which we regard as individual rather than specific. 
16. Machilus velutina, Champ. in Hook. Kew Journ. Bot. v. 
p. 198; Benth. Fl. Hongk. p. 291; Maxim. in Mél. Biol. xii. 
p. 934. 
Actinodaphne angustifolia, Seem. Bot. Voy. * Herald,’ p. 408, non Nees. 
k Honaxone (Wright! Champion! Hance!). Mus. Brit. ; Herb. 
ew. 
[Actinodaphne angustifolia, Benth. (Fl. Hongk. p. 293), but 
certainly not of Nees, from Hongkong, was collected by Mr. Ford 
in exactly the same condition—in fruit—as by Mr. Wilford, and 
we are still uncertain what genus it belongs to, but it would seem 
to be congenerie with Beilschmiedia fagifolia, Nees.] 
