: . ■. %- 



■■ ---T 



WOLLASTOX EXPEDITION TO DUTCH NEW GUINEA. 



495- 



(yostu sat valida, siipenie Jicmd anmistata^ apice spinoso-dentata. Folii mar- 

 gines bistratosi, dentlbus scvjye (jemhiatis validis e Lasi fere fortiter spinosi. 

 Cellulte hreves^ irregulares, hexagono-rliomboidefo, etc, Sctrt? 2-7 aggre- 

 gatae, ad 5 cm. alta?, crassinsculre ; theca inciinata, Lorizontalis vel leniter 

 mitans, cum operciilo 1 cm. vel panllo ultra longa^ paullo curvata, plicatji, 

 operculo magno, valide longe siibiilato-rostruto. 



Camp VI b, 4475 ft, 29 Jan., 1913 (Xo. 39). Camps IX-X, 0000-8000 ft. 

 (No. 40). In montosLS Mo-roka^ Distr. Moresby, Brit. New Guinea, leg. 

 L. Lqria, det. C. Mueller, No. 1G38 ; Bryotheca E. Levier. 



I have compared the AYollaston Expedition plant with Lovier's specimen 

 in the British Museum collection, and it agrees quite well; one or two o£ 

 the stems in the latter specnnen have slightly denser branching, but this It^ 

 inconstant and of no great importance. The species lias not, I believe, 

 been described, and as Loria^s specimen is sterile, I have made the Wollaston 

 plant the type. 



Brotherus jnakes ILpavvum a synonym oi H.nanum (C. Muell.), but, as I 



have not been able to see a specimen o£ the latter, and as both names are 



unpublishedj I have retained that which I have been able to identify with 



the Wollaston Expedition plant. C. Mueller gives both plants as Mnioderi' 



dron, and Brotherus places them under the Section Comatulina of thatgenus^ 



but from the short, mostly parencliymatous cells I think it must be placed 



under llypnodendron^ subgenus Lhnbella. 



IL parvum resembles in some degree the plant described by 0. Mmdler as 



//. fiuco-adculare^ but the leaf-form and structure are quite different, and 



the squamiform knives in that are erect and appressed. II. fusco-acii'ularey 



however, must disappear as a species, for it is entirely identical with 



IL ChalmersU, Mitt, in Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. vii. (J 883) 103. I have a 



>pecimen of //. Chalmersii collected by Mrs. Musgrave (in Brit. New 



Guinea, in 1890)^ determiiKnl by Mitten himself, and agreeing quite well 

 with his description of the original plant, and it agrees exactly with another 



specimen of the same collector, gathered in 1897, and determined by 

 Brotherus as //. fi($ro-ariculare. As u matter of fact, it is very probable 

 that both Mitten's and C. Mueller's species were described from the samo 

 ;athering, as both are founded on specimens gathered by Dr. (^halmers. 



u 

 to 



IlyrNODKNDKON, nov. subgenus LEiocARros, 



Theca prielouga^ hand plicata. 



lIvrNODENDRON AuiiicoML'M, Broth. & Geh. in Ofv. Finska \^et.-Soc. 



Forh. xL 190. 



Camp Ylh, 4475ft., Jan. 1913 (No. 38) ; and Feb. 2, 1913 (No. 41). 

 Both c* f r. 



The antliors, in describing this specieSj refer it tentatively to Kditipno- 

 dendvon, but remark that being sterile its position is uncertain and can be 



