OF THE GENUS MILLETTIA. 239 
M. AnGENTEA, Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. i. 156.—Dalbergia argentea, Zippel, ex Miq. 
l.e. The type in the Leiden Herbarium (Herb. Lugd.-Bat.) is a portion 
of a climbing leafy shoot with twining petioles, and from the latter 
character can hardly be included in Millettia. The absence of flowers 
aud fruit renders even its generic identification impossible. 
M. arenensis, De Wild. Compagnie du Kasai (1910), 309. 
The description is from leaves and young flower-buds. ТЕ can only 
be conjectured that it is a Mil/ettia of the section Efulgentes, perhaps 
near M. urophylloides. 
M 
CHAPELIERI, Baill. in Bull. Soc. Linn. Par. i. (1883) 395; Drake, Hist. 
Madag. 1. 140. 
The description is meagre and leaves the genus doubtful, but it is 
more likely to prove a Craibia than a Millettia. 
M. Luzonensis, A. Gray, Bot. U. St. Expl. Exped. i. 456. No specimen 
, y і l 
has been seen, and the description hardly warrants its inclusion in 
Millettia. 
M. riscATORIA, Merrill in Philipp. Gov. Lab. Bur. Bull. xxvii. 37.— Cylista 
piscatoria, Blanco, Fl. Filip. ed. 1, 589. — Galactia terminiflora, Blanco, 
l. c. ed. 2, 411. 
No specimen has been seen. 
M. nosrRATA, Mig. Fl. Ned. Ind. i. 155.— Dalbergia rostrata, Hassk. Flora, 
The deseriptions are from foliage only, and leave the genus quite 
doubtful. 
M. sPLENDIDISSIMA, Blume, ea Miq. Fl. Jnd. Bat. i. 156. The type consists 
of leaves only, so that the genus eannot be determined. It has, however, 
the look of a Fordia, and may prove to be F. filipes. 
M. xvrocanPa, Miq. Fl. Ned. Ind. i. 157. The specimen in Horsfield's own 
herbarium at the Linnean Society's Rooms consists of foliage and pods, 
and there is nothing to show that Miquel was not right in referring 
it to Леа. Flowers, however, would be necessary to verify his 
conclusion. It is exstipellate, and the pod shows that the pistil was 
5-ovulate. 
M. ZoLLINGERIANA, Miq. Fl. Ind. Bat. i. 156. The very meagre description 
leaves the genus doubtful. 
FORNASINIA EBENIFERA, Bertol. Misc. Bot. viii. (1849) 18, t. 1., is known to 
me only from the description and figure quoted, which, while leaving 
no doubt as to the genus, cannot be definitely reduced or placed as a 
species. 
