ME. 0. B. CLAfiKE ON INDIAN SPECIES OF CTPEEU8. 15 



(from the similarity in umbel) it must represent the same plant, 

 despite the fact that Eottboell gives a totally different nut. The 

 error has been continued to Boeckeler, though it is possible that 

 Boeckeler has never seen the true C. alopecuroides, Eottb., and 

 that he has only seen C. alopecuroides, Eoxb., and allowed it occa- 

 sionally to have a dorsally compressed nut, in order to include 

 Eottboell's. However that may be, Boeckeler's O. alopecuroides 

 is (as he says) very nearly the same as G. dives, Delile ; and both 

 may, I think, be best considered mere varieties of C. exaltatus, 

 Eetz., while 0. alopecuroides, Eottb., is very closely allied to 0. 

 Monti. A more difficult case is the union of C. inundatus, Eoxb., 

 with C. procerus, Eottb., which I also believe an error, founded 

 on trusting too absolutely the general aspect of the umbel. 



The character of the umbel is put forward prominently, both by 

 Kunth and Boeckeler, in grouping the numerous species of the sub- 

 genus Eucyperus into sections : a matter so difficult that we may 

 fairly catch at any straw that can possibly aid us. Some groups, as 

 the Exaltati (including therein the Papyri), are allied by an inde- 

 finable similarity of umbel. But the character of the umbel, even 

 in hands of the experience of Boeckeler, will not always enable 

 us to place a species next to its neighbour. Boeckeler places 

 C.jeminicus, Eottb. ( = C. tuberosus, Vahl), among the Corymbosi, 

 whereas I take the plant to be very near to (specifically distinct 

 from) C. usitatus, Burchell, which Boeckeler has in a very different 

 place. C. tenuiculmis, Boeck. = 0. Zollingeri, Steud.= C. luci- 

 dulus, Klein, is placed also by Boeckeler among the Corymbosi, 

 but has been rightly placed both by J. D. Hooker and Hance 

 (under other names) close to O. compressus. Many of Boeckeler's 

 sections include great variety of inflorescence ; and my argument 

 is, not that I am prepared to propose a much better grouping than 

 his, but that the value of the umbel as a character in forming 

 groups must be regarded as doubtful until backed up, and as un- 

 equal in different parts of the genus. 



In the type section of the subgenus Mariscus the character of 

 the inflorescence appears more constant, even in variable and 

 composite species. In C. umbellatus, Benth., there is one (appa- 

 rently) spike on each primary ray. This character is constant 

 through an enormous range of subspecies, though occasionally I 

 have seen one or two smaller spikes added on one ray. One spike 

 on each ray seems also the invariable rule in C. retrqfractus, 

 C ovularis, Torrey, C.flavus, and the whole of this series ; while 



