^ c- 



*P T rrr> ■ ■ « - TT"^ 



,-*"ll*' vv« 



- r > — T 



^ — -h- 



J * 



4 



it' 



4 



-I 



242 



MR. L. V. LESTim-GAnLANl) : A REVISION* 



A striking forin^ unlike anything else in the genus, recognisable by the 

 very dense indumentum and the shape o£ th^ adult leaves, which are some- 

 times almost rectangular in outline "vvith the angles rounded off. 



De AVildeman, /. e.^ described two closely-related species, IJ. Bequaeriii and 

 B. IVingoeti^ the latter based on Ringoet No. 1 from the Niewdorp in the 

 Katanga district, I am not convinc(Hl that these are more than two forms 

 oE tlie same plant. He relies for distinctive nuirks upon tlie leave.^, which are 

 said to be crowded toii'cther at the ends of the branches and iilabrous above 



and only sparsely hairy beiiGath in J>eqnaeHii^ but scattered and densely 



haiiy both above nnd beneath in RinyoelL "Rogers's 10378, which Fries 



named Bequaeriii^ corresponds to this descri[)tion of EingoetL The other 



ppecimeiis at Kew and at the Brit. Mus. answer more nearly to Bequaertii^ 



but the congestion of the leaves and flowers suiijiests an accidentitl shorteninj; 



of tlie young shoot rather than a normal development, and it is easy to trace 



a progressive loss of hairs on the two surfaces of the leaves as they grow 

 older. 



Excluded Names. 



'' B. ajVicana, At'z/^ liaill. in Laness. PL Ut. Cob Fr. 341 (1886). Nomen 



solum. 



"7?. romjoJeniis^ Welw. ex Baker in FL Trop. Afr." Tiiis name appears 

 in De Wild. Miss. Lnur. i. 105. '^ Congoleaais'^ is obviously a clerical error 

 for aiigolensis^ but the mistake is repeated in the indt^x. 



u 



B. lancifi 



Baill. ex Laness* PI. Ut* (Job Fr. 310. Nomen" has found 



its way into the 'Index Kewensis/ Suppb 1. This also appears to be a clerical 



error. 



The 



description. 



if< 



ti 



lere is a 



'/^ 



and which is not included in the 'Index Kewensis ' at all. 



[NoTK.^Since this pa})or has been in type it has become evident that 

 Baphia RadcUjjti^ Buk. f. is identical with Bapldopsis Stnhlmannii^ Taub. in 



Engb Pflauzenw. Ost.-Afr. C. 203 (1895). This was kindly pointed out by 

 Prof. Harms, to whom a specimen of the Baphia had been sent and who 

 sent a specimen of the Bap)hloj)sis in return. — lo^A Aprils 1D21.] 



